🏆 Winning Arguments
Real PINS Inspector reasoning from appeals where refusals on Flood were OVERTURNED. Use as precedent in your appeal statement — these are the arguments that actually defeated the LPA's position.
📊 Showing 8 PINS appeals where refusal on Flood was OVERTURNED (national).
Each card quotes the inspector's reasoning verbatim — drop directly into your appeal statement as precedent (with proper attribution).
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3376692 (Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area *) — 2026-05-29
📍 Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * LPA code: E07000006 PINS reference: 3376692 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 March 2026 by M Chalk BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 Boveney Court Farm , Boveney Road, Dorney, W indsor , Buckinghamshire, SL4 6QG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for [outline] planning permission • The appeal is made by Eton College against Buckinghamshire Council. • The application Ref is PL/25/0354/FA. • The development proposed is d emolition of open sided barn, conversion, alteration and change of use of existing buildings from Use Class B8 to Use Class C3 to provide 7 residential units and construction of 5 new residential units, to provide a total of 12 residential units (2 x 2 bedroom; 6 x 3 bedroom; and 4 x 4 bedroom) including hard and soft landscaping, attenuation pond, bin and cycle stores, car parking, infrastructure and associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for d emolition of open sided barn, conversion, alteration and change of use of existing buildings from Use Class B8 to Use Class C3 to provide 7 residential units and construction of 5 new residential units, to provide a total of 12 residential units (2 x 2 bed room; 6 x 3 bedroom; and 4 x 4 bedroom) including hard and soft landscaping, attenuation pond, bin and cycle stores, car parking, infrastructure and associated works at Boveney Court Farm , Boveney Road, Dorney, Windsor, Buckinghamshire, SL4 6QG in accordan ce with the terms of the application, Ref PL/25/0354/FA and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Applications for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Eton College against the council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matters 3. The appeal proposal is functionally unchanged from that previously dismissed on appeal in July 2024 1 . Since that time additional information has been provided in relation to the effect on bats or other protected and important species. 4. The site is in the Green Belt. In determining the previous appeal on this site in July 2024 the Inspector found that the proposal was not inappropriate development as it comprised the redevelopment of previously developed land which would not cause substan tial harm to openness. That appeal was assessed against the December 2023 National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) , but the most recent Framework update in December 2024 contains essentially the same exception to what constitutes inappropriate de velopment at paragraph 154(g). 1 PINS ref: APP/N0410/W/23/3335905 Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 There are no changes to the scale or siting of the proposed development from that earlier decision. It would be contained principally within the bounds of the existing built form and hardstanding within the site. While there would be some loss of openness from the new houses due to their siting and height, I agree with my colleague that this would amount to no more than moderate harm. Consequently, the proposal would accord with the exception at paragraph 154(g) of the Framework. 5. Like cases should be determined in like manner, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the December 2024 revisions to the Framework state at paragraph 156 that major housing development in the Green Belt should provide affordable housing that reflects local or national policy , necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure, and the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public. These are known as the Golden Rules and are a material consideration in the determination of this appeal . 6. A separate application for listed building consent 2 was submitted to the council for works to a Grade II listed barn on the site. Consent was granted in September 2025 for those works , and therefore this is not a consideration in this appeal . Main Issues 7. There is no dispute between the main parties about the proposed improvements to local infrastructure. The main issues are therefore : • Whether the appeal proposal would provide sufficient affordable housing , • Whether it would make acceptable provision of open space , • The effect of the proposal on protected and important species and habitats, with particular regard to bats ; and, • Given local concerns about safe access in the event of flooding, I have also elevated this to a main issue having sought the views of the main parties . Reasons Affordable housing 8. The Framework states that major housing development in this location must contribute 50% affordable housing . National Planning Practice Guidance states that for development which is subject to the Golden Rules a site specific viability assessment should not be undertaken for the purpose of reducing developer contributions, including affordable housing. It is not disputed that the development would not provide 50% affordable housing , with a contribution equating to 21% towards offsite housing instead proposed. 9. Co r e Policy 3 of the South Bucks Core Strategy require s at least 40% in schemes of 5 units and above to be affordable . The policy allow s both for off - site provision and for a lower contribution where it is clearly demonstrated that this is not economically viable. The appeal proposal does not therefore conflict with Core 2 Council ref: PL/25/0355/HB Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 Policy 3, as the council have accepted that a fully compliant scheme would not be economically viable. 10. Nonetheless, the development would fail to provide sufficient affordable housing , contrary to the Framework. Open space 11. The Framework further requires that the development provide new green spaces that are accessible to the public, or improvements to the same. The council have identified a requirement for 0.11 hectares of open space to be provided as part of this development, including a Local Area of Play of at least 100 square metres. The appellant does not dispute this requirement. 12. N o public open space would be provided as part of the development. Furthermore, no contributions are included in the submitted unilateral undertaking towards the improvement of existing public green space. 13. Consequently, the development would also fail to make acceptable provision for open space, contrary to the requirements of the Framework. Bats and protected species 14. The previous appeal on this site was dismissed as the Inspector found that the bat surveys for the site were out of date and therefore it was unlikely that Natural England would grant a mitigation licence for the proposed works . S ubsequently new surveys have been conducted which provide an updated position statement for bats on the site. 15. I have had regard to my duties under Regulations 9(1) and 9(3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 in relation to nature conservation. In this instance the presence of bats within the buildings has been established by the provided surveys. These have been reviewed by Natural England alongside their grant of a licence for works to a neighbouring building. Natural England ha s indicated that it would likely accept the mitigation methods described. 16. The council’s ecology consultee has also reviewed the additional information and advised that the development would be acceptable, subject to conditions. C onditions securing suitable care and mitigation measures are set out in the attached schedule. The proposed mitigation measures would minimise the disturbance to bats from a development that would deliver new housing in a district where there is a recognised shortfall of housing land through the redevelopment of redundant buildings . The development would therefore successfully meet the tests for receiv ing a European protected species licence from Natural England, subject to compliance with the proposed conditions . T here would consequently be no unacceptable impacts to bats arising from the proposed development. 17. The appeal proposal would therefore accord with Core Policy 9 of the Core Strategy, which requires biodiversity resources to be conserved and enhanced. Flooding 18. The appeal site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3. A flood risk assessment has been provided . While not a concern raised by the council or its internal consultees, there Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 is public interest in the possibility of flooding causing a loss of access from the appeal site. The Environment Agency noted in a consultation response that the development would result in a situation of d anger to m ost people in the event of flooding with a danger of loss of life for the general public . The main parties’ comments were sought on this point . 19. The appeal site lies between the River Thames and the Jubilee River. This latter watercourse was constructed as a flood relief channel for the River Thames. However, subsequent flooding has shown that the design of the Jubilee River was inadequate to handle higher levels of overflow. Residents and the Parish Council have therefore expressed concerns that in the event of further flooding occupiers of the proposed houses would be at risk due to being unable to evacuate. 20. F looding of a scale that would affect access to the appeal site would occur in a 1 in 100 flood event. Such an event would affect the wider Thames Valley, and any effect on the access to the site would be preceded by several days of flood effects in the wider area. This would provide advance warning to residents of a potential need to evacuate , with updates available should the water level continue to rise. 21. The risk to residents of being unable to evacuate is therefore slight , considering the slim possibility of a flood event of sufficient magnitude occurring and the considerable lead time before the evacuation route would be affected . Paragraph 181 of the Framework states that in areas at risk of flooding development should only be allowed where, amongst other considerations, safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate. Given the low level of risk, the development would accord with this requi rement. Other Matters 22. The appeal site lies within the Boveney Conservation Area , and I have a duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving its character or appearance . There is also a Grade II listed building on the site, identified as building B on the submitted plans , and I must have special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting . The Conservation A rea is characterised by scattered properties of varying ages set in spacious gardens and other open spaces. The listed building is a 17th or 18th century timber - framed building finished partly in weatherboarding and with a tiled roof. The farmyard provides the setting within which the barn is principally experienced . In determining the previous appeal on this site my colleague concluded that the proposal would result in a slight enhancement to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The appeal proposal is identical to that scheme, and there is no evidence before me to lead me to find otherwise. It would also therefore preserve the setting of the listed building. 23. The development has been proposed despite concerns over its viability. However, a contribution towards affordable housing would be provided and the unilateral undertaking allows for a further viability review as part of the development . This could secure additional revenue if the return on the development exceeds that which is expected . It also secures contributions towards the provision of NHS services. I see no reason to doubt that the contributions would be used as identified in the undertaking. The council has asked for the undertaking to be varied to take account of different figures . However, given the lack of viability of the development I am content that the undertaking as submitted is acceptable . Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 24. My attention has been drawn to a recent decision made by the council to refuse permission for the residential redevelopment of a site elsewhere in Dorney . I note that this other development was found to fail the sequential test for flooding and the site was found to not be in a sustainable location . Given these significant differences the council’s decision does not lead me to alter my conclusions on this development. 25. A neighbouring occupier has queried the accuracy of the red line on the application drawings. However, the appropriate ownership certificate was served on the neighbour advising of the development before the application was submitted. 26. A neighbour expressed concerns about w indows facing into their property over the shared boundary. These windows are existing and at a high level in the wall s , but would serve habitable rooms and bathrooms in units C and D. Where these windows would serve habitable rooms these would be dual - aspect or open plan rooms with other windows to provide outlook. Accordingly, a suitably worded c o ndition could ensure that these windows are retained as non - opening with obscured glazing to preserve the privacy of the neighbouring occupiers. While the neighbour also expressed concern about light from these windows there would be no change to their size or siting . This would therefore not resu lt in unacceptable harm to neighbour living conditions. 27. Interested parties raised concerns about the council’s handling of the application in relation to public consultation and the extent to which they sought the views of consultees on the matter of flood risk. However, i t is not within the scope of this appeal to address th ese concerns . 28. The site is located outside the built - up areas of the surrounding settlements. Occupiers would be dependent to an extent on private vehicles but no more so than those in neighbouring properties, and there are some amenities in the nearby settlements within walking or cycling distance. While the road into the main built - up area of Dorney does not have a footpath along it, it is fairly wide and visibility along it is good. I am therefore satisfied that the site is not an unsustainable location for residential development. 29. The development makes provision for wildlife habitats which would be secured by condition. This is supported by the council, and there is no detailed evidence before me to suggest that such measures would not be effective. The construction environmental management plan would detail the existing biodiversity features of the site, a nd explain how harm would be avoided during construction. Planning balance 30. The appeal proposal would not comply with the Golden Rules set out in the Framework for major housing development in the Green Belt. As the proposal complies with one of the exceptions set out in paragraph 154 of the Framework this would not make it inappr opriate development in the Green Belt, but a failure to comply does weigh against the proposal. 31. The council can only demonstrate a housing land supply o f 0.91 years, which is an acute shortfall against the minimum requirement of 5 years. Accordingly, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 32. The development would make a contribution towards affordable housing , albeit not a policy - compliant one. The shortfall therefore attracts moderate negative weight in the overall balance. 33. The appeal site is next to Dor n ey Common , a large area of public green space. Given the proximity to existing public space t he lack of provision of , or contribution to, public space therefore also attracts moderate weight against the proposal . 34. G iven the council’s housing land supply position, the harm arising from the failure to comply with the Golden Rules would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the considerable benefits that wo uld result from the proposed development. Planning permission should therefore be granted. Conditions 35. The council has recommended conditions . I have considered these against national planning practice guidance and, where necessary, amended the wording . 36. I have imposed conditions relating to the commencement of development (1) and confirming the approved plans (2) for the sake of certainty. I have omitted from the list of approved plans those which are not to scale as these are informative but cannot be considered enforceable. 37. Conditions requiring the approval of materials (3) and compliance with the approved arboricultural method statement (4) are reasonable to secure an acceptable finished appearance for the development. 38. Conditions 5, 6 and 7 ensure that development does not proceed on site if the land is found to be contaminated unless that contamination is remediated . Conditions 8 and 9 secure the access to and within the site, together with parking. Condition 10 ensures that reasonable archaeological investigat i ons are carried out on site as part of the approved development. 39. Conditions 11 to 15 would prevent any undue effect to biodiversity from the development and provide certainty about the protection of bats in particular. 40. Flood risk at the site and surface water management would be controlled by c onditions 16 to 20 . These would include compliance with the submitted flood risk assessment, agreement of a flood risk management plan which would include evacuation plans and information for future occupiers , agreement of surface water management measures and agreement of details of maintenance for the site’s drainage system. 41. A condition requiring that obscured glazing be fitted to windows in Units C and D that face onto a shared boundary (2 1 ) is reasonable to prevent loss of privacy to the neighbouring occupiers. C onclusion 42. For the reasons set out above the appeal is allowed. M Chalk INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 Schedule of planning conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos : 5540 - 1100 - REV - I Proposed Residential Development Location Plan 5540 - 1101 - REV - E Existing Site Block Plan 5540 - 1102 - REV - K Proposed Site Block Plans 5540 - 1103 - REV - H Development Footprint Comparison Plan and Table 5540 - 1104 - REV - E Lighting Strategy 5540 - 1200 - REV - E Existing Plans – Unit B 5540 - 1201 - REV - E Existing Plans – Units C,D,E,F1,F2 and G 5540 - 1202 - REV - D Existing Roof Plan – Units C,D,E,F1,F2 and G 5540 - 1210 - REV - H Proposed Plans – Unit B 5540 - 1211 - REV - H Proposed Plans – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G 5540 - 1212 - REV - H Proposed Plan – Units H - J and K - L - M 5540 - 1213 - REV - E Proposed Roof Plans – Units C,D,E,F1,F1 and G 5540 - 1233 - REV - E Ground Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit B 5540 - 1234 - REV - D First Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit B 5540 - 1235 - REV - D Roof Demolition Plan and Current Condition Unit B 5540 - 1236 - REV - E Ground Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit C and D 5540 - 1237 - REV - D Roof Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit C and D 5540 - 1238 - REV - D Ground Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit E 5540 - 1239 - REV - D Roof Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit E 5540 - 1240 Existing Open Sided Barn – To Be Demolished 5540 - 1301 - REV - B Existing Elevations and Section – Unit B 5540 - 1302 - REV - C Existing Elevation and Section s – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G 5540 - 1303 - REV - D Existing Elevations and Sections – Unit C,D,E,F1,F2,G 5540 - 1311 - REV - D Proposed Elevations and Sections – Unit B 5540 - 1312 - REV - G Proposed Elevations – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G (1/2) 5540 - 1313 - REV - H Proposed Elevations – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G (2/2) and Sections 5540 - 1314 - REV - F Proposed Elevations and Section – Units H – J 5540 - 1315 - REV - H Proposed Strip Elevations 5540 - 1320 - REV - A Proposed Elevations and Sections – Units K - L - M 5540 - 1321 Proposed Bin Store Floor Plans and Elevations 5540 - 1322 - REV - A Existing and Proposed Strip Elevations 5540 - 1335 - REV - A External Current Condition and Demolitions - Unit B 5540 - 1336 - REV - B Internal Current Condi tion – Unit B 5540 - 1337 - REV - A Externals Current Condition and Demolition – Units C - D - E 5540 - 1338 - REV - A Externals Current Condition and Demolition – Units C - D - E 5540 - 1355 - REV - B Unit B – Elevations as Proposed 5540 - 1356 - REV - B Unit B – Sections as Proposed 5540 - 1357 - REV - B Units C - D - E – Front and Rear Elevations as Proposed 5540 - 1358 - REV - B Units C - D - E – Side Elevations as Proposed 5540 - 1401 - REV - C Barn B – Proposed Typical Section and Details 5540 - 1402 Units C & D – Proposed Typical Section Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 5540 - 1403 Unit E – Proposed Typical Section 5540 - 1404 - REV - C Barn B – Proposed Typical Connection Detail 5540 - 1405 - REV - A Barns C & D – Typical Conservation Roof light Detail 20102 - SFK - B - GF - DR - S - 0100 T1 Barn B Plans, Section and Elevations as Existing 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0200 T2 Barn B Demolition 20102 - SFK - B - GF - DR - S - 0300 T1 Barn B Ground Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - 1 F - DR - S - 0301 T2 Barn B First Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - R - DR - S - 0302 T2 Barn B Roof Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0303 T1 Barn B Section as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0304 T2 Barn B Steelwork Plan and Details 20102 - SFK - A - XX - DR - S - 0407 Rev B Detail 7 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0411 Rev B Detail 11 – Rafter Repairs 20102 - SFK - CDE - GF - DR - S - 0300 P1 Buildings C, D & E Ground Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - CDE - GF - DR - S - 0301 P1 Buildings C, D & E First Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - Gen - XX - DR - S - 0412 Detail 12 – Wall / Soleplate Repairs 3) Prior to any works above ground floor slab level, a detailed schedule of works and materials to be used to for the development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority . The details to be submitted shall include the following: a) Elevational materials to be used on existing and proposed buildings; b) Matching brick bond to plinth of listed building and mortar mix; c) All internal and external new joinery details (doors and windows) at an appropriate scale, including sections and glazing bars; d) Details of contemporary glass framing system; e) Details of insulation to be provided for listed building and curtilage listed buildings; f) Metal rainwater goods; g) Details of roof lights and lanterns h) Details of hard surfacing to be used throughout the site i) Details of any new external flues, vents, grills, or external pipework The development shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the approved details. 4) The development shall be implemented in accordance with the document titled Tree c ondition s urvey, Arboricultural Implications Assessment a nd p rotection r ecommendations w ith descriptions of landscape enhancements dated 7 January 2025 , and the plans contained within it , submitted and approved as part of the planning application . The works shall be carried out under the supervision of a retained arboricultural specialist to ensure that the phasing of the development accords with the stages detailed in the method statement , and that the correct materials and techniques are employed. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 5) Prior to any below ground works commencing on site , the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority: i) A site investigation, based on the Phase 1 Ground Condition Assessment prepared by Stantec and dated January 2025 , to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. This should include an assessment of the potential risks to: human health, property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, pests, woodland and service lines and pipes, adjoining land, ground waters and surface waters, ecological systems, archaeological sit es and ancient monuments. ii) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (i) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. iii) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (ii) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangement s for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. 6) Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme and prior to the first use or occupation of the development, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced together w ith any necessary monitoring and maintenance programme and copies of any waste transfer notes relating to exported and imported soils shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The approved monitoring and maintenance programme shall b e implemented and continued in accordance with the approved details . 7) Any contamination that is found during the course of construction of the development hereby permitted that was not previously identified shall be reported immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be su spended until a risk assessment has been carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found, the development shall not resume or continue until remediation and verification schemes have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 8) No part of the approved development shall be occupied until the existing means of access has been sited and laid out in general accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with the Buckinghamshire Council guide note "Commercial Vehicular Access Within the P ublic Highway". 9) The scheme for parking, garaging and manoeuvring indicated on the submitted plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall be retained thereafter. 10) No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, have undertaken a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation , including details of how any findings shall be recorded, which has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 11) The development shall not commence until a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (the HMMP), prepared in accordance with the approved biodiversity metric calculation and its supporting documents , has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The HMMP shall include : (a) a non - technical summary; (b) the roles and responsibilities of the people or organisation(s) delivering the HMMP; (c) the planned habitat creation and enhancement works to create or improve habitat to achieve the biodiversity net gain in accordance with the approved metric ; (d) the management measures to maintain habitat in accordance with the approved biodiversity metric calculation for a period of 30 years from the completion of development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The created and/or enhanced habitat specified in the approved HMMP shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved HMMP. 12) Prior to the commencement of development above ground level, an ecological enhancements scheme to detail bat roost replacement features, such as bat boxes, bat tiles/access features and bat lofts, swift boxes and sparrow boxes, reptile hibernacula/log pile s, stag beetle log piles, wildlife kerbs, and gaps at ground level of boundary fences for the movement of hedgehogs, shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The development shall proceed in accordance with the ecological enhancements, which shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the development and retained thereafter. 13) Before any construction works hereby approved are commenced, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) detailing, in full, measures to protect existing habitat during construction works and to safeguard protected and notable species, shall be sub mitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The CEMP should be completed in accordance with the British Standard on Biodiversity BS 42020:2013 with these details below: a) Details of what biodiversity features could be impacted on and what development activities could be potentially damaging; b) A rolling timetable of when and where specific measures to avoid / reduce impacts are to be carried out including any seasonal or legal implications (e.g. the bird nesting season) and who is responsible; c) Details of method statements for specific biodiversity issues (e.g. for specific destructive activities such as: vegetation clearance, hedgerow removal, tree felling, soil stripping and building demolition); d) Identify all practical measures (e.g. fencing, protective barriers and warning signs) and sensitive working practices to avoid impacts; e) Details of inspections to ensure wildlife do not become trapped in excavations or machinery; f) Details of other responsible person and lines of communication on - site in relation to the implementation of the CEMP; Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 g) Details of contingency measures in the event of an accident or other potentially damaging incident (e.g. pollution incidents; how to deal with previously unrecorded protected species found during construction and restoration; unexpected bad weather; rep air of damaged features etc.); h) Details of procedures to avoid pollution incidents (e.g. from fuel spills and site run - off based on an understanding of the wildlife interest at risk); i) Regular review of the implementation of CEMP throughout the construction / restoration phase to monitor effectiveness of mitigation measures and compliance with legal, planning and/or contractual requirements; j) Details of biosecurity protocols / method statements to prevent spread of non - native species; k) Temporary management of existing wildlife features during construction / implementation. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 14) Prior to occupation, a "lighting design strategy for biodiversity" shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall: a) identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places or along important routes used to access key areas of their territory, for examp le, for foraging; and b) show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent the above species u sing their territory or having access to their breeding sites and resting places. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the strategy, and these shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the strategy. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be ins talled without prior consent from the local planning authority. 15) The development shall be implemented in strict accordance with the agreed reptile mitigation plan (Re ptile Mitigation Strategy, Davidson Watts - Ecology, 12 January 2023). 16) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (reference 332612015, dated January 2025 by Stantec) , Stantec letter dated 7 May 2025, reference Project/File: J:32612015 Boveney Court Farm and the Stantec Technical Note dated March 2026 , including the following mitigation measures: • Finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 21.49 metres above Ordnance Datum (AOD) • Compensatory storage shall be provided as set out in Stantec Drawing 49209/4001/002, Revision C named 'Floodplain Storage Analysis' These mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the scheme's timing/phasing arrangements. The measures detailed above shall be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the de velopment. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 17) No works (other than demolition) shall begin until a Flood Risk Management Plan based on the draft submitted with the March 2026 Stantec Technical Note has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the approved Ma nagement Plan. 18) Prior to the commencement of development above ground level a scheme showing details of boundary treatment within the 1% annual exceedance probability plus 35% allowance for climate change floodplain, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The boundary treatment shall be permeable to floodwater. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the scheme's timing/phasing arrangements. 19) No works (other than demolition) shall begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on the Location Plan (drawing no. 1100, rev. I , Phase 1 Ground Condition Assessment prepared by Stantec and dated January 2025 . Flood Risk Assessment (332612015, 07 February 2025, Stantec) , Surface Water Drainage Strategy (332612015/100/DSR, 07 February 2025, Stantec) and Response to LLFA Surface Water Drainage Strategy Comments (332612015/RMF/EE - PL/25/0354/FA, 07 May 2025, Stantec) has been submitted to a nd approved in writing by the local planning authority . The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include: • Assessment of SuDS components as listed in the CIRIA SuDS Manual (C753) and provide justification for exclusion if necessary • Demonstrate that water quality, ecological and amenity benefits have been considered • Water quality assessment demonstrating that the total pollution mitigation index equals or exceeds the pollution hazard index; priority should be given to above ground SuDS components • Undertake the clearance of overgrown vegetation within the second length of ditch to ensure water can flow unimpeded • Discharge from the site should be limited to 4.3l/s • Ground investigations including: • Infiltration in accordance with BRE365 • Groundwater level monitoring over the winter period (from November until April) • Subject to ground investigations demonstrating that infiltration is viable, the applicant shall amend the surface water drainage scheme to dispose of surface water runoff via infiltration • SuDS components agreed within the Proposed Surface Water Drainage Layout (drawing no. 49209/4001/003, rev. B) • Full construction details of all SuDS and drainage components • Detailed drainage layout with pipe numbers, gradients, and pipe sizes complete, together with storage volumes of all SuDS components Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 • Calculations to demonstrate that the proposed drainage system can contain up to the 1 in 30 storm event without flooding. Any onsite flooding between the 1 in 30 and the 1 in 100 plus climate change storm event should be safely contained on site • Details of proposed overland flood flow routes in the event of system exceedance or failure, with demonstration that such flows can be appropriately managed on site without increasing flood risk to occupants, or to adjacent or downstream sites 20) Prior to the occupation of the development a whole - life maintenance plan for the site must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The plan shall set out how and when to maintain the full drainage system (e.g. a maintenance schedule for each drainage/SuDS component), with details of who is to be responsible for carrying out the maintenance. The plan shall also include as as - built dr awings and/or photographic evidence of the drainage scheme carried out by a suitably qualified person. The plan shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 21) Prior to first occupation of the dwellings identified as Units C and D on drawing referenc e 5540 - 1211 - REV - H t he ground floor windows in those dwellings marked as HL on that drawing shall be fitted with obscured glazing in accordance with d etails submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning . O nce installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. End of schedule⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
conclusions on this development. 25. A neighbouring occupier has queried the accuracy of the red line on the application drawings. However, the appropriate ownership certificate was served on the neighbour advising of the development before the application was submitted. 26. A neighbour expressed concerns about w indows facing into their property over the shared boundary. These windows are existing and at a high level in the wall s , but would serve habitable rooms and bathrooms in units C and D. Where these windows would serve habitable rooms these would be dual - aspect or open plan rooms with other windows to provide outlook. Accordingly, a suitably worded c o ndition could ensure that these windows are retained as non - opening with obscured glazing to preserve the privacy of the neighbouring occupiers. While the neighbour also expressed concern about light from these windows there would be no change to their size or siting . This would therefore not resu lt in unacceptable harm to neighbour living conditions. 27. Interested parties raised concerns about the council’s handling of the application in relation to public consultation and the extent to which they sought the views o…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3373696 (South Oxfordshire District Council) — 2026-05-29
📍 South Oxfordshire District Council LPA code: E07000179 PINS reference: 3373696 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision s Inquiry Held on 31 March, 1 - 2 April , 8 - 9 April 2026 , closing in writing 7 May 2026 Site visit made on 2 April 2026 by M Shrigley BSc (Hons) MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 th Ma y 2026 Appeal A : APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696 Thames Farm , Reading Road , Lower Shiplake RG9 3PH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant p lanning permission . • The appeal is made b y Taylor Wimpey West London against the decision of South Oxfordshire District Council . • The application Ref P 24/S2642/FUL , dated 16 August 2024 , was refused by notice dated 16 July 2025 . • The development proposed is for engineering operations associated with ground stabilisation works . Appeal B : APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 Thames Farm , Reading Road , Lower Shiplake RG9 3PH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted . • The appeal is made by Taylor Wimpey W est London against the decision of South Oxfordshire District C ouncil. • The application Ref P24/S2652/S73 , dated 16 August 2024 , was refused by notice dated 18 July 2025 . • A pplication Ref P24/S2652/S73 sought variation of conditions 1 and 3 on application P19/S0245/RM (Reserved Matters for 95 dwellings (appearance, landscaping, scale and layout) pursuant to outline application P16/S0970/O) (as amended by plans and information received 9 January 2025, 17 February 2025, 14 March 2025 and 9 May 2025) . • The conditions in dispute ( conditions 1 and 3 ) state : (1) That the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans . (3) T he landscaping scheme as shown on the approved plans shall be implemented in accordance with Landscape Management Plan CSA/4049/01 and thereafter be maintained in accordance with this Plan. In the event of any of the trees or shrubs so planted dying or being seriously damaged or destroyed within 5 years of the completion of the development, a new tree or shrub or equivalent number of trees or shrubs, as the case may be, of a species first approved by the Local Planning Authority, shall be planted and properly maintained in a position or positions first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. • The reasons given for the conditions are: (1) To secure proper planning of the area in accordance with Development Plan policies . (3) To help to assimilate the development into its surroundings in accordance with Policies CSEN1 and CSQ3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2027 and Policies G2, C9 and D1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 - 2035 . Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Appeal C : APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 Thames Farm , Reading Road , Lower Shiplake RG9 3PH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the refusal to grant consent subject to the conditions of consent , agreement or approval of details required by conditions of a planning permission . • The appeal is made by Taylor Wimpey West London against the decision of South Oxfordshire District Council. • The application r ef erence P24/S2651/DIS , dated 19 August 2024 , was refused by notice dated 18 July 2025. It sought approval of details pursuant to conditions 4 , 5, 8, 9 and 11 attached to planning permission P16/S0970/O . • The development proposed is for outline planning permission for up to 95 dwellings and associated public open space and landscaping. With means of access and strategic landscaping not reserved ( allowed at appeal 2 August 2017 as per appeal reference APP/Q3115/X/23/3325922) . • The condition in dispute is No. 11 which states that: No further development shall commence, beyond the access works already implemented, until a drainage strategy, detailing all on and off - site surface and foul drainage works, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall occur before the drainage strategy has been completed and brought into use. • The reasons given for applying the condition are to ensure the proper provision of surface water and foul water drainage and to ensure flooding and pollution is not exacerbated in the locality in accordance with policy EP4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 - 2035. Decision s 1. Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for engineering operations associated with ground stabilisation works in accordance with the terms of the application, r ef erence P24/S2642/FUL , dated 16 August 2024 , subject to the ‘Schedule of C onditions ’ set out at the end of this decision . 2. Appeal B is allowed and permission is granted for the variation of conditions 1 and 3 on application P19/S0245/RM (Reserved Matters for 95 dwellings (appearance, landscaping, scale and layout) pursuant to outline application P16/S0970/O) (as amended by plans and information received 9 January 2025, 17 February 2025, 14 March 2025 and 9 May 2025) in accordance with the terms of the application, reference P24/S2652/S73, dated 16 August 2024 , subject to the ‘Schedule of Conditions’ set out at the end of this decision. 3. Appeal C is allowed and condition discharge is granted in accordance with the terms of the application, reference P24/S2651/DIS , dated 19 August 2024 . Procedural Matters 4. The i nquiry concern s three linked appeals A, B and C , as described in the banner . South Oxfordshire District Council ( SODC ) agree that Appeal B is dependent on the outcome of both Appeal A and Appeal C, and that Appeal C is dependent on Appeal A. It therefore is necessary to assess some of the considerations arising in Appeal’s A and C first. 5. Based on the collective main issues and technical matters aired, which overlap, it is also appropriate to deal with all three appeal s together rather than as separate decision letters. Accounting for each of the individual Decision Notice grounds contested , I have further consolidated the agreed main issues to avoid unnecessary duplication in my reasoning. Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 6. I acknowledge t he planning application to amend the approved layout (P24/S2652/S73) if successful under Appeal B reduces the number of dwellings proposed from 95, which was the number approved under reserved matters, to 84 dwellings. The reduction is proposed by the appellant to accommodate a drainage basin, as part of its overall drainage strategy. 7. It is also pertinent to mention, i n May 2020 SODC approved a non - material amendment (P20/S0134/NM) to planning permission P16/S0970/O. This altered the wording of c ondition 11 so that it allowed for the provision of a vehicular access to the site prior to the submission and approval of the drainage strategy. 8. Although application P24/S2651/DIS sought acceptability of details for discharge of: c ondition 4 for vehicular accesses, footways, cycle ways, driveways and turning areas; c ondition 5 for construction management; c ondition 8 for landscape management; Condition 9 for a bat method statement; and c ondition 11 for a drainage strategy . Only c ondition 11 detail adequacy is dispute d by the main appeal parties. 9. Without prejudice to the outcome of the appeal s , it was agreed during proceedings that the appellant would be given until 2 4 April 2026 to produce a completed d eed of v ariation related to its overall case . A completed deed was subsequently received slightly beyond that timefram e ( 1 May) . However, it is legally binding and therefore informs my decision. Main Issue s 10. The main issue s relate to the following : • W hether it is sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed development would not pose unacceptable risk s to a local principal aquifer and public water abstraction having regard to stabilisation works , ground stability, pollution, drainage and flood ing (Appeal ’s A and B ) . • The acceptability of drainage strategy details for the discharge of c ondition 11 (Appeal C). • Deed of variation adequacy to secure associated affordable housing , infrastructure and mitigation (Appeal B) . Reasons Risk s to principal aquifer /public water abstraction from : (i) stabilisation works 11. During my site visit I could see the appeal land was predominantly an open grassed over field accessed from Reading Road, close to existing dwellings in the wider vicinity. 12. It is common ground the site falls within groundwater S ource P rotection Z one 1 (SPZ 1 ) of an underlying aquifer used for public water supply abstraction . I also note the site is within a Drinking Water Safeguard Zone for groundwater and surface water. The purpose of the la t ter designation by the E nvironment A gency (EA) is to protect raw water resources from further deterioration by pollution and to reduce the need for extra treatment by water companies. 13. Groundwater in SPZ1 (as the inner zone of the three main water protection zones) is most vulnerable to pollution given the proximity of the abstraction Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 point and the water’s intended use for human consumption. It is defined within the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 as one of the following: a) the area within 50 metres of a point where the groundwater is abstracted for domestic supply or food production purposes; b) the area where it t akes groundwater that is intended to be used to supply water for domestic or food production purposes up to 50 days to travel to the groundwater abstraction point. 14. G roundwater beneath the appeal site travels to the Harpsden Public Water Supply (PWS), approximately 130 metres or so away. From that point onwards abstracted water is treated using filtration and chlorination processes . Water then enters the domestic use supply system . 15. Unstable ground within the site boundary is underlain by the principal aquifer within the SPZ. SODC and Thames Farm Action Group (TFAG) as the Rule 6 Party both underscore the imperative of properly managing local water supply resources given water pathways with in the site boundary . Harpsden PWS contributing over one third of the potable supply for the Water Resource Zone. 16. SODC and TFAG combined contend it is not sufficiently demonstrated the engineering works tied to Appeal A could occur without posing unacceptable risks to the principal aquifer and to public water abstraction at Harpsden PWS. 17. The overarching contentions made by them is that the Hydrogeological Impact Assessment (HIA) does not provide sufficient information to properly gauge risk. Tied to that claim is that there is deficient information on: groundwater levels; the extent, number, and depth of solution features ; the nature of the hydraulic gradients between the site and the PWS; and the presence of any fast flow pathways. 18. The appellant’s HIA assessment is also subject to a long list of technical criticisms including but not limited to: an underestimation of potential for preferential pathways; downplayed potential for unaddressed void presence; solution pipes with superficial deposits are unpredictable; solutio n pipes can/do sometimes extend below the water table which the site is likely to contain; and that the aquifer itself is not identified as a receptor, based on the source, pathway, and receptor model. 19. Furthermore, it is alleged: chalk fracture width is underestimated as per the core recovery material in boreholes HF4 and HF5 ; related depth of grouting considerations required downplay hydrological connectivity between structured and unstructured chalk; that flow rates would be assisted by fractures and networks linked to voids; a nd that a detailed quantitative risk assessment should be undertaken for the proposed ground stabilisation works in view of these considerations . 20. With all those contentions in mind, I acknowledge t he u nderlying geological composition of the appeal site largely comprise s of superficial deposits of sand, gravel, clay and silt in different proportions, upper weathered chalk and then moderately weathered chalk. 21. Ground condition investigations reflect regional karstic features of : voids; deep solution features; and fracturing. The investigations imply there could well be rapid flow of groundwater and potential contaminants above and below the water table. Based on the evidence I cannot discount that situation completely. Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 22. The appeal technical evidence and arguments focu s on the presence of structure d and unstructured chalk deposits within the site . Th is is because the properties of chalk layers in the ground has led to solution pipe formation over time. The ground is consequently less stable because of these naturally occurring geological formations , particularly at the eastern side of the site . 23. S olution pipes are characterised to extend into structured chalk at roughly around 15 metres below ground level. Acknowledging some contain permeable superficial deposit material within them and may be hydrologically active or others being potentially waterfilled or air filled voids 1 . 24. TFAG broadly argue unstructured chalk layers present in the ground are characterised by high porosity . Fractures or discontinuities are recorded within those layers according to the appellant’s January 2023 borehole log investigations 2 . Whereas t he appellant’s expert witness ’s analysis is that structured chalk may have become putt ylike when mixed with clay and other substrate s over time limiting its permeability and potential for complete recovery in the cores . A s an explanation of the borehole log information recorded . 25. T he appellant’s evidence is credible that a naturally occurring meniscus crust forms a barrier within the solution pipes restricting permeability . A nd that some of the results could be affected by instances of no recovery in the sample cores obtained. Those circumstances offer me plausible explanations of why the borehole information in dispute is interpretated differently by the appellant. 26. Additionally, t he appeal evidence suggests that unstructured and structured chalk could be found together, and that fragments of the structured chalk could be found within the unstructured chalk. 27. In that context, I accept that t he Drill and Grouting Plan presented by the appellant is not intended to be a precise grouting proposal. That is b ecause it is not possible to conclude all solution features have been identified . And because the appellant would also deliberately be using real - time feedback from the construction operators involved in the drilling and grouting processes to further refine grouting placement s . The latter being a chieved v ia active monitoring of injection pressure and grout volumes extruded into the ground giving physical indication whether a f eature is stabilised or not . 28. Nevertheless, from a risk perspective the Drill and Grouting Plan still offers a reasonable planning and decision making basis to work from . It is underpinned by a reasonably robust technical assessment allowing for interpretation expertise . Even if there was more prior investigatory technical information aligned with SODC ’s and TFAG ’s contentions, operators would still need to respond to real time grout injection feedbac k when undertaking the work. 29. As part of examining the existing hydrogeological conditions, I note that E.Coli and other total coliform bacteria were consistently found across the site during September to November 2025 3 at boreholes MW1 - 5 and HF2. With concentrations highest at HF2 at the western boundary of the site heading towards existing residential properties. 1 Geotechnical Investigation 4072D/19 (Terramech) , Appendix C : Borehole logs Z1 – Z10 . 2 Hydrogeological Impact Assessment for ground stabilisation works, ( H Fraser Consulting , 2024 ) Appendix C . Borehole references: HF2 ; HF3 & HF5 . 3 Appellant’s Analytical Reports by Analytical i2 Environmental Science Ltd . Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 30. This does imply routes in groundwater could be affected by surface and subsurface contamination via rapid flow through superficial deposits. Septic tank leakage is highlighted as the likely primary contaminant source. That said, I am equally cognisant a variety of wildlife in the area are also potentially capable of spread ing such coliform s . For instance , at my site visit I witnessed two deer moving around within the boundary and there is likely to be other fauna in the localit y . Thus, I do not rule out the possibility of other wider traceable sources above septic tank leakage . 31. Importantly, I note that compaction grouting is not a novel construction technique given it has been used in the UK since the 1980’s. As depicted by the appellant’s experts t he compaction grouting process described involves drilling boreholes , then injecting a stiff mortar grout, containing coarse sand and limestone dust. This process produces an expanding bulb, compressing the surrounding ground. 32. The evidence before me implies injected grout would not flow , i t would be extruded under pressure emerg ing as a solid like mass. S etting begins from the moment it is mixed and it achieves full curing within approximately two hours. Injection would be targeted into unstructured chalk, with a 2 metre stand - off above the measured water table monitored daily, with no pulverised fuel ash, and a 50 metre exclusion zone around the PWS. 33. I recognise the EA’s approach to groundwater protection involves the application of the precautionary principle. I also agree relative to joint EA/Defra guidance it is the responsibility o f a developer to provide an adequate conceptual model for a risk assessment . In addition to any other relevant information for its engineering works to be suitab ly gauged. 34. Similarly, I also realise seeking more baseline data within the initial assessments can sometimes be an essential requirement. Nonetheless, insights which can be obtained from practical understanding, experience, and applied professional expertise are also applicable as ingredients informing the appellant’s overall approach. In this case professional judgment has been applied alongside the limitations in the baseline data available. 35. In such circumstances linked to the dispute , the practical application of engineering solutions devised to treat ground conditions cannot be determined by report data alone. At some junctures there must be some interpretation and inferences applied. In the main this falls at the interface of independent experts and eventual contractors undertaking stabilisation works informed by initial investigation and known risks. Accepting other anomalies c ould occur. 36. Thus overall, there would never be absolute certainty on ground conditions. The appellant on the whole evidences a structured engineering process and active solutions to treat unstable ground . 37. Based on all the evidence the grouting process would not be haphazard. I have no strong reasons to believe competent contractors would not be able to undertake the engineering works safely or correctly , ensuring adequate protections. 38. S crutiny of the appellant’s approaches during the inquiry itself further focuses and brings attention to any possible weaknesses in the proposed engineering steps to be taken. SODC conceded that a suitable future monitoring scheme Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 could establish the ground water levels when grouting would be undertaken. SODC ’s criticisms nevertheless remain that adequate ground level water information is still warranted in the HIA. 39. That said, additional information is contained in the appellant’s hydrogeological witness statements referring to December 2025 and January 2026 as well as some off - site Thames Water data in the wider evidence. Although SODC still point to shortfalls from inter - seasonal or inter - annual variation the additional data gives me some further reassurance that the appellant’s initial assessments are reasonabl y robust . 40. With respect to ground investigation work, the appellant has limited its intrusive investigations to isolated boreholes and dynamic probe testing within the zones of the potential features using a 6 metre grid system. 41. Allowing for suggested limitations in the dynamic probe evidence, the criticisms of 6 metre grid spacing utilised instead of 3 metre spacing are material. I accept there may be undetected voids present in the ground. But there would be ample scope for the appellant to safely rectify that situation using the compaction grouting techniques they have described. 42. The matter undoubtably is a risk but I am not persuaded it carries an unacceptable level of risk. Even with 3 metre spacing , the risk of undetected features would still not vanish. The appellant otherwise gives credible evidence of how grout compaction techniques would sufficiently stabilise the ground. More grout stabilisation could be undertaken if it proved necessary during groundworks, when pressure and grout extr u sion monitoring feedback would be known by the drilling and injection point operator. 43. There is no dispute about the presence of open fractures and fissures in the structured chalk. Albeit t he parties disagree whether the properties of unstructured chalk can support pathways allowing the passage of grout. 44. The precautionary 2 metre stand - off above groundwater levels prior to grout injection would provide some safeguard . Even so, I acknowledge that some of the solution features present penetrate below the water table for drilling into the structured chalk. This does give rise to sub - vertical and sub - horizontal pathway risks as well as risks through the presence of other potential v oids in the ground. 45. Yet, the appellant supported by the slump tests it evidences indicates that grout injected into the ground would set within two hours. As a result, there would be no reasonable prospect of transmission into the PWS. Even when conceding there are potential additional pathway risks including fast flow pathways in accordance with SODC and TFAG’s cases, the distances involved relative to the setting time are the most crucial factors. Furthermore, no other stabilisation process is considered a realistic practica l alternative to grouting. 46. I find t he distances evident coupled with the anticipated stiffness/thickness of the grout prior to its setting gives a credible explanation why it would be highly improbable, if not impossible , for the grouting works defined within Appeal A to harm the PWS. Thus, the overall risk level from grouting processes on the aquifer and abstraction would be acceptable. Nevertheless, other overlapping factors also warrant consideration . (ii) Adequacy of drainage strategy detail s Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 47. At the time when the outline planning permission (P16/S0970/O) was approved, and the reserved matters consent (P19/S0245/RM) was granted, SODC had no indication that the ground conditions were such that stabilisation works would be required to implement the permitted housing development . 48. The proposed updated drainage strategy would utilise two detention basins to the east of the site, alongside Reading Road. These were granted under the reserved matters consent. Water would then be pumped from the eastern detention basins to a proposed new primary detention/infiltration basin to the west , replacing 11 permitted homes. A pumping station would be required due to the existing topography, as the new western basin is on the highest part of the site. 49. A surface water pumping station would be located near to the allotments towards the northern boundary . It is designed to meet adoptable standards, which requires the provision of two pumps, in the event of failure. Although t he likelihood of both failing at the same time is slim , it is possible . F or example, electrical failure could lead to this situation . In such circumstances, significant surface water storage would be available within the drainage network allowing repairs or alternative power provision t o be made. 50. Fundamentally, when assessing the appellant’s drainage strategy SODC and TFAG provide combined reasons against the principle of a layout using a pumped surface water drainage system . I ncluding allowing for water discharge from Reading Road , on sustainability grounds. 51. In particular , TFAG contend a gravity based system is both possible and preferable as well as supporting a less intensive form of layout. In their view such changes would alleviate the strain on the appellant to seek to rely upon over complicated engineering solutions. I agree a less dense housing scheme would allow greater latitude in the layout and /or utilisation of a gravity system ( if feasible ) would further minimise some risks. 52. That said, a decision is still required based on the collective information before the i nquiry relative to all alleged risks alongside what has already been previously permitted. 53. The appellant takes the position that pumped storage is the most suitable option for its layout in trying to meet SODC’s overall reasons for refusal linked to a ppeals A, B and C. There is nothing compelling to show that a gravity system would be effective for the number of homes the appellant is purs u ing . O therwise, it is likely owing to ease they would already have pursued this alternative option . 54. The Court of Appeal Glidewell LJ 4 case q uoted in the evidence sheds further light on the dispute s in that it identifies the overarching legal principle that a Planning Authority cannot refuse the best option achievable. As to do so could amount to a revocation of planning permission in the context of what has already been formally permitted. 55. The fact that the proposed drainage strategy involves adoption requirements through a New Appointments Variation (NAV) or statutory undertaker is an extremely important added complication. TFAG and SODC making the 4 Medina Borough Council vs Proberun Ltd ; Court of Appeal ( Glidewell, Stuart - Smith L.JJ. and Sir David Croom - Johnson): May 15, 1990 Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 combined proposition there is no realistic chance of adoption from a NAV or Thames Water as the statutory undertaker. 56. Affiliated risks also arise in that it is not possible to conclude that all solution features have been identified, particularly within the western detention basin and infiltration b l anket area. Subsequently, I have factored risks regarding: solution features remaining untreated; solution features not be ing completely grouted if they continue to depths below the groundwater table; and risks grout could be injected into a void extending into the water table itself. 57. Moreover , SODC raise: the stability of embankments should not be left to post condition discharge consent; that the basin may be undersized; the potential for overtopping relative to a 300mm freeboard; the lack of emergency storage and spacing around pipes for mai ntenance and lined permeable road paving on top of a rising main drain; inadequate soakaway tests as all being factors for a NAV to reject adoption of infiltration features. 58. I also note the maximum water levels of the western detention basin would sit around 4 metres above the floor levels of adjacent dwellings in the event of failure. 59. But even when considering all those additional points raised , the overall resultant flood and pollution risks are still likely to be low. Due maintenance regimes can be secured. Plus, the appellant suggested during the i nquiry there would be practical flexibility to achieve increased freeboard requirements in the eventual detailed drainage design. There being scope for a 400 - 600mm (or at least 500mm) freeboard aligned with SuDS Manual advice exceeding t he 300mm currently suggested, with a 1 in a 1000 year storm event and possible overtopping in mind. 60. In addition, there are notable historic flooding incidents documented over a ten year period on Reading Road. Even without new housing, I am aware the existing soakaways built under Section 278 (s278) of the Highways Act 1980 provision s may either not be effective or require maintenance. Even so, the Highway Authority has powers to further assess and assist this matter including potentia l l y bolstering maintenance regimes if it needed to further protect the residents it serves, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal s . 61. Whilst NAV adoption may be difficult to obtain, I cannot conclude it would be impossible. It is a separate formal process where there is scope to make detailed design adjustment. And , the previous granting of outline permission for a maximum quantum of housing is also material. 62. That is because it is for the appellant to find and pursue the most effective solutions to the technical constraints it faces for the maximum number of houses it can practically achieve, supported by evidence . The maximum figure already being lowered in its intended revised layout with all public and statutory concerns accounted for in mind. 63. Consequently, bringing all relevant technical points together I find the criticisms to the details provided to meet condition 11 concerning Appeal C do not raise insurmountable issues that are incapable of being overcome . Nonetheless, g iven the intersecting appeal case arguments present further impacts should be addressed before reaching any overall findings . (iii) Other linked drainage/flooding, ground stability and pollution risk s Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 64. Alongside the submitted drainage strategy, t he p lanning application reference P24/S2652/S73 appealed seeks to amend the approved layout to accommodate the drainage features necessitated by the ground stabilisation works, resulting in a reduction from 95 to 84 dwellings, with upgraded house types and a new SuDS drainage basin in the south - western corner o f the site. 65. TFAG contend : the appellant’s detailed risk assessment does not recognise the potential for solution features and vulnerabilities as indicated by dynamic probe readings ( AO12, AN13, AN14, AO14 and AP14 ) beneath the planned western detention basin; the risk assessment only considers the PWS, using the chalk aquifer for the purposes of dilution and attention of contaminants; the detention basin sits above unstructured chalk and must provide adequate permea bility to allow recharge of the aquifer; potential inc reased turbidity from grouting processes transferring pollutants; and increased alkalinity from using ordinary Portland Cement and uncertainty of any additive use. 66. Additionally, t here are material on and off site flood risks attached to potential failure of the proposed detention basin design. Plus, t he design of the proposed temporary bunds featuring in the construction phases are alleged by SODC and the R ule 6 Pa r ty to not adequately address what the risks are during a severe weather event . I have considered all such criticisms in my overall findings. 67. In terms of drainage / flood and pollution risk matters arising from the engineering works in Appeal A and in the varied layout for Appeal B . The appellant’s analysis suggests there are some solution features within the footprint of the detention basin and supporting bunds. SODC and TFAG share concerns that these pose a ground destabilisation and subsequent flood risk if left untreated. 68. However, I have no strong reason to believe the appellant ’ s approach would not be able to be successful given the depths involved relative to the drainage system , infiltration rates and expected containment bund height . Planning conditions would provide further reassurances. A side to that, a ny additional solution features would also be able to be suitably treated if they were needed to be . I nclusive of the appellant obtaining any further necessary consents. 69. The appellant as part of its proposed temporary surface water drainage strategy , utili sing containment bunds , anticipates the use of a ‘silt buster’ to mi ni mise sediment in site surface water. Although some unwanted residual sediment may be transported , t h e process would provide adequate control as the stabilisation works progress ed . 70. T he south eastern corner of the site has some vulnerability for a 1 in 100 year storm event . Which would affect Reading Road should the temporary bund s fail . Nevertheless, that vulnerability would only be within a limited timeframe whilst the stabilisation works would be completed . 71. I recognise a variety of factors such as seasonality/rainfall , groundwater level variability and pumping periods at the PWS are further variables during construction works . But these considerations would be able to be managed through daily monitoring in the construction process es . 72. In other drainage respects also linked to the layout sought in Appeal B and linked to Appeal’s A and C . F alling head tests and permeability rate information provided by the appellant underpinning the size of the basin and infiltration Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 blanket give me further insights and assurances its approach would be able to be successful . 73. There may be some technical shortfalls in the drainage details provided . However, there is due flexibility to furt her adapt the d rainage d esign in relation to overcoming min im um freeboard requirements and any notional basin under sizing risk , a longside Defra’s national requirements for S u D S through working amendment . Accepting, t he detention basin would have a water level considerably above the nearest properties. 74. In the event of bund failure , more water would discharge onto Reading Road and the properties to the east of Reading Road. Nonetheless, I find that residual flood risk s would be able to be successfully managed to an acceptable level through the imposition of suitably worded planning conditions aligned with SODC officer recommendations . 75. As to the scope to utilise a Source Protection Strategy (SPS) planning condition . Important nuances arise in that t he EA suggests such a condition would be to ensure the proposed development does not harm the water environment. Whereas Thames Water ’s suggested wording focuses on not harming the water abstraction source. 76. I concur that the suggested SPS condition wording subject to the main appeal party dispute may not be able to discount any harm whatsoever to water resources . It would however facilitate proportionate monitoring and remedial action should any be required. Consequently, it would still be beneficial. Connected to that issue , the appellant’s water contamination model is highly conservative in multiple respects and shows negligible risk from contaminants . This strengthens the basis of favouring the appellant’s approach es . 77. Other criticisms cite assessment has not accounted for the risk associated with failure of water management systems, including structural failure of sewage pipes leading to the migration of contaminants . Yet, p recautions such as flexible couplings and high - specification pipework c ould readily be incorporated in the detailed design phase, in accordance with the EA 's recommendations for sewage infrastructure in SPZ1 . Besides , I note there is existing development much closer to SPZ1 which ha s not been rejected on such speculative grounds. 78. The EA’s approach to groundwater protection is material. Development works in Appeal A and Appeal B could potentially require an environmental permit, even though the appellant does not envisage this to be the case. Consequently, I have approached this mat ter cautiously when considering the scope of the main parties suggested planning condition wordings. 79. In accepting there is a gap between statutory consultee response intention s for condition use application, it is necessary for me to bring all points together relative to the risks involved. I find there would be no realistic prospect of grout reaching the aquifer and thus the risk level is acceptable . But a n appropriately worded planning condition would assist with due monitoring and any remedial action on a precautionary basis if the grouting process proved problematic . E ven if highly improbable. However improbable the likelihood, a belt and braces precautionary approach is warranted . 80. The chemical structure , of the grout pre and post setting utilising o r dinary c ement rather than s ulphate r esisting was clarified by the appellant . On top of Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 the wider appeal evidence referring to the mix more broadly as contain ing water, sand, cement and bentonite. Accordingly, a satisfactory impact to water pH levels would be possible and highly probable from the grouts composition . The overall setting time and stiffness of the mixed grout are adequate reasons not to attribute harm from potential additive use , of which none is envisaged in the appellant’s submissions . 81. SOD C also raise issues with the design and location of the detention basin. Especially outfall ; key feature sizing; self - cleansing capacity and its long - term maintenance. Nonetheless, I am satisfied the appellant has planned adequately for its drainage s ystems to be successful. The re is scope to overcome some residual criticisms alongside recognition of s104 of the Water Industry Act 1991 and the processes expected to achieve drainage system adoption . To assume there would be no possibility of adoption would be overly restrictive . 82. Strikingly, SODC do not claim actual harm to the PWS or the c halk aquifer. Both the EA and Thames Water are satisfied that a SPS secured by planning condition is an appropriate and effective safeguard. The EA in applying its groundwater protection policies has concluded that the risks are acceptable. Although such views are not binding, I find there is no compelling basis to disagree with their conclusions . 83. Overall, a llowing for planning condition use, I find that collective stabilisation, ground stability, pollution, drainage and flood risk impacts for Appeal A would be able to be managed to an acceptable level . South Oxford shire Local Plan 2011 - 2035 (SOLP) Polic ies ENV12 and DES7 a s well as Joint Henley and Harp sden Neighbourhood Plan 2020 - 2035 ( J HHNP) Policy E NV5 would be complied with . C ombined those policies aim to prevent harm to human health, the natural environment and neighbouring uses . A s well as ensuring new development ha s appropriate regard to geology and drainage capacity given the chalk present in the area. 84. I n tandem , when assessing all overall risks tied to Appeal C relative to Appeals A and B , I find there is sufficient detail to allow formal discharge of condition 11 . The details provided would ensure the proper provision of surface water and foul water drainage , to ensure flooding and pollution is not exacerbated in accordance with SOLP Policy EP4 seeking to minimise such risks . 85. Similarly , the collective stabilisation, ground stability, pollution, drainage and flood risk impacts for Appeal B would also be able to be managed to an acceptable level. Accepting , there are other Appeal B matters which need to be addressed. Deed of variation adequacy / other residual matters ( linked to Appeal B) 86. In assessing th e preceding main issues, I have already factored that t he Section 73 application appealed is to vary conditions 1 (Approved Plans) and 3 (Landscaping) on the Reserved Matters approval . 87. A suitably worded and executed d eed of v ariation agreed by the appellant, SODC and Oxfordshire County Council would extinguish the reason for refusal previously advanced by SODC towards meeting existing Section 106 (s106) planning obligation requirements administered under the Town and Count r y Planning Act 1990. Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 88. As part of those considerations, at the i nquiry the appellant acknowledged that an addendum to the affiliated s278 agreement also incorporated in to the original planning obligation w ould be required . This would be needed to secure necessary adjustments to amend the highways soakaway adoption plan drawing and/or any bond provision if required . 89. Such amendment would be able to be achieved through a new separate s278 entered into by the appellant and the County Council directly. In that context, I note that the County Council have indicated that no further revision to Schedule 7 of the original s106 planning obligation would therefore be necessary. 90. The original s106 terms are not otherwise contended by the main appeal parties and I have no substantive reason to conclude the resultant provi si ons are not acceptable . Consequently, there would be suitable binding arrangements in place securing affordable housing, infrastructure and mitigation meeting SODC ’s reasons for refusal applied to Appeal B. 91. Whether or not adequate drainage design (linked to Appeal C) and ground stabilisation works (linked to Appeal A) can be provided , having regard to pollution risks to a local aquifer; public water abstraction; as well as the stability of the land for development and flood risk is answered by my overall reasoning in the preceding main issue s . 92. Accordingly, I find the information available linked to Appeal B alongside the submitted d eed of v ariation coupled with the original s106 meets the terms of S OLP Policies INF1, TRANS4, TRANS5, EP3, EP4, ENV1, CF5, ENV12 and DES7 . As well as J HHNP Policies ENV5, H2, and T5 . Collectively those policies seek to ensure: appropriate infrastructure and mitigation including for transport and affordable housing provision; that the quality of the local landscape and the countryside is respected; appropriate regard is paid to geology and drainage ; the efficient use and protection of natural resources; pollution a nd amenity harm avoidance ; as well as facilitating safe walking routes . Other planning considerations 93. For all of the appeals I have carefully considered other public objections relating to: the appellant’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) credibility and alleged deficiency; noise, vibration and air quality assessment inclusion in the EIA; harm to human health/absence of proof of adequate safety levels or contingency plans if pollution or contamination of the ground/water did occur; absence of monitoring; and alleged flawed drainage and foul waste disposal . 94. As well as further claims that : planning permission should not have been granted in the first instance; the overall complexity of the site conditions has been underestimated without robust investigation; some risks are unquantifiable; carbon footprint impacts; soil damage; adverse implications to water, gas and sewage utilities ; negative impacts to wildlife; unacceptable increases in traffic; conflict with sustainability goals; other sites/alternatives should be pursued for housing; neighbourhood planning i nterests should not be ignored ; and that new housing numbers should not override public safety or water supply management interests. 95. In summary those considerations do not give me compelling reasons to refuse planning permission or condition discharge. Mainly because of the findings of Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 the officer reports informing SODC’s decisions having regard to statutory consultee advice, as well as condition and planning obligation use applicable . B ut also, because the appellant has otherwise given adequate overall reasoning of why its approaches are acceptable. 96. Having regard to the Town and Country Planning ( EIA ) Regulations 2017 , inclusive of Schedule 4, I am satisfied there is sufficient overall environmental information available to inform a decision . Noting t he appeal parties have agreed to the main inquiry issues as informed by topic specific statements bearing in mind all other third party opposition to the appeal in advance of the opening of the inquiry . 97. Tellingly, as highlighted in SODC’s officer committee report findings I note that Thames Water has raised no objection to the development. Furthermore, one of the roles of the EA is to protect groundwater sources used to supply drinking water from pollutio n and they have also raised no objection to the proposed ground stabilisation works. The responses of those statutory bodies carry significant overarching weight. 98. The engineering works detailed within Appeal A is not in itself a proposal for new housing. Therefore, applying the til t ed balance within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework ) would not be appropriate. Nevertheless, the fact that the engineering proposal would be undertaken to facilitate much needed new housing in a n administrative area which cannot otherwise demonstrate an adequate housing land supply remains . Accordingly, i n the circumstances, I do give substantial weight to enabling new housing as an underpinning reason for the appellant making the planning application linked to Appeal A . 99. Connected to that matter as an overarching point, I agree with interested parties objecting to the appeal scheme s that housing supply pressures in themselves should not override public safety interests or unacceptable risks to the water supply. However, in this case c oupled with my findings on the main issues and the ability to use appropriately worded planning conditions alongside legal agreement use, there is nothing compelling to suggest such public concerns amount to strong enough reasons to resist the appeals when considered collectively or in isolation . The most pertinent risk factor s are adequately addressed. 100. P aragraph 61 of the Framework is relevant. It advocates to support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay. The overall aim should be to meet an area’s identified housing need, including with an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community . 101. In accordance with the Framework, enabling the delivery of new housing within the locality carr ies significant positive economic and social benefits. 102. T he adverse impacts of the proposal s identified in the E nvironmental S tatement Addendum relating to carbon emissions and embodied carbon attract moderate negative weight. I also concur with SODC that w ith respect to A ppeal B, the impact of the construction compound on the woodland planting area would have a minor negative environmental impact, albeit it is alleviated Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 by planning conditions. I have factored th ese position s into my overall conclusions. Conditions 103. Without prejudice , the main parties comp il ed two separate lists of planning conditions . One applicable to Appeal A , the other applicable to Appeal B , in the event either is allowed. The lists are only partially agreed by the appellant as SODC and TFAG argue further alternative inclusions and wording extending to prior to commencement inclusions . 104. S ection 70(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables a local planning authority when granting permission to impose planning conditions as they think fit . Nevertheless, a pre - commencement condition must not be imposed on the grant of permission (other than a grant of outline planning permission within the meaning of Section 92 of the 1990 Act) without the written agreement of the applicant except in the circumstances set o ut in the Town and Country Planning (Pre - commencement Conditions) Regulations 2018 . 105. I have considered all elements relative to the legal tests referenced in paragraph 5 7 of the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance, allowing for minor adjustment where necessary. For the avoidance of any doubt the legal tests for a planning condition are whether it is : necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise; and reasonable in all other respects. Appeal A conditions 106. S tandard conditions would be needed to specify the time limit and plans in line with statutory provision and to enable a formal mechanism for amendment. 107. I realise that a greater amount of compaction grouting may , or may not , be required above that shown on the proposed Drill and Grout Plan . Importantly, t he p lan needs to be read alongside the O utline Project Method Statement and the Specification for the Stabilisation of Dissolution Features as well . T ogether with those documents t he umbrella terms of the description of the development appealed do facilitate due latitude. 108. If need ed , although I am not suggesting it w ould be, a further variation of condition application could be applied for , substituting the p lan should stabilisation works be more pervasive . But in any event, g iven the practicalities of undertaking the extensive ground engineering work applied for of which there is fair and sufficient approximate indication of already, it is also reasonable to allow some practical working leigh way . Plus, some plan deviation s may not trigger further consent . Either way the Council would retain adequate enforcement control s . 109. Additional conditions pertaining to e nvironmental p ermitting and collateral warranties are disputed . It is not clear what environment al permit (s) if any would b e required. I have no reason to believe EA focused requirements operating outside the planning system would not be duly followed or be able to function effectively . The onus would remain on the appellant to ensure compliance is met with the EA . Likewise , wider private contract interest mechanisms alluded to fall outside the scope of public interest matters to which Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 the planning permission would relate. Thus, those added component s would fail the legal test of necessity . 110. A SPS planning condition would be required to minimise the prospect of harm to the water environment from a risk manag ement perspective which incorporates monitoring . I note that grout composition and permit verification risks aligned to SODC’s and TFAG ’s overall co ncerns would be alleviated by its inclusion . Th is is because the Planning Authority would be able to consult the EA and other relevant statutory consultees on the suitability of the SPS details once received . The process facilitates requesting further details if required . 111. A surface water drainage scheme would be needed to manage residual pollution and flooding risks . In the prior to development commencing wording agreed by the appellant, it is reasonable to expect that any future strategy to be a pproved by the Planning Authority can , and sh ould include , monitoring as part of the management details to be provided . H aving regard to residential properties and Reading Road . 112. A soil management and phasing condition would be required to reduce the risk of unwanted soil compaction to assist with successful landscaping establishment. 113. C ondition s requiring a Construction Environmental Management Plan and tree protection details are required to protect ecological features , protected species and visually important trees . 114. A condition preventing grouting below the water table would be required to ensure no harm arises to the water environment. The app ellant has otherwise indicated it intends to utilise a 2 metre water table safety buffer . Thus, further stipulation in the wording would not improve the effectiveness of the condition to protect water resources or its subsequent enforceability. 115. C onstruction management c onditions securing : the restricti on of piling; air quality mitigation ; a Construction Traffic Management Plan ; a s well as construction methods and hours are required . These would be necessary to reduce the potential for harm to the water environment; to protect the living conditions of neighbouring residents and in the interests of highway safety. Appeal B conditions 116. A s tandard planning condition listing all approved plans would be appropriate having regard to statutory provisions and to facilitate any future amendments. 117. A landscaping , maintenance and replacement condition would be required to ensure the development properly assimilates with its surroundings. However, a future occupants/ landscape guide condition suggested as being agreed by the appellant would not meet enforceability or necessity tests . 118. Separate to that I agree a Travel Plan condition is necessary to promote non - car modes of transportation and sustainable travel . 119. A suite of planning conditions would be essential securing : visibility splays and their retention ; other highways related infrastructure (vehicle access, cycle ways, driveways and turning areas with associated surfacing and drainage) ; alongside construction management details to ensure adequate safety levels. The underlying construction management principles already agreed, but sought Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 to be further address ed, would be able to be effective without further alteration . 120. For the same reasons already mentioned linked to Appeal A I do not find conditions requ iring environmental permit verification or collateral warrant ies would be necessary. 121. C onditions would also be required to secure an Environmental Management Plan for Biodiversity and lighting details to protect ecological assets, interests and species. 122. A pre - commencement condition securing approval of a water drainage strategy and its subsequent implementation alongside other related conditions would be vital . The condition s would ensure suitable overall site drainage is achieved. Bearing in mind all submissions, the expected strategy should in corporate phasing, infiltration testing and future maintenance elements to minimise the risk s of any future harm (s) occurring . 123. An addition al condition for verification of the adoption arrangements anticipated under Section 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991 is warranted in line with SODC ’s and the R ule 6 ’s concerns . It is within the overall public interest to allow such a bespoke safeguard having regard to the overall design amendment and refinements indicated to be necessary relative to local flood risk management interests . 124. C onditions requiring c ompletion of groundworks would be needed to ensure the appeal site is safe. Above that, f urther house foundation inspection checks within the planning consent would not be necessary given the compaction grouting process es detailed by the appellant overall . 125. Further more, conditions are necessary and appropriate for fence/boundary treatment s and a noise assessment for the pumping station a longside any mitigation detail implementation . This w ould ensure the character of the area is respected and satisfactory resultant living conditions are achievable . Planning Balance and Conclusion 126. I appreciate SO DC’s and TFAG’s submissions reflect the material difficulties in developing the appeal site , requiring due scrutiny particularly in light of all detected shortfalls . 127. Even so, I must make clear a decision on the appeal case s in dispute is not an opportunity to go behind the principle of allowing housing development already granted to the appellant. The starting point for any decision maker is that such principle has already been formally established . 128. When assessed I find that the technical deficiencies in the appellant’s proposals are not strong enough reasons to resist the appeals. In totality, allowing for planning condition and legal agreement use , I find that there is adequate information available regarding the risks to local water resources and the PWS . The collective stabilisation, ground stability, pollution, drainage and flood risk impacts would be acceptable. A s well as there being reasonable mechanisms available to facilitate PWS and wider locality protection s meeting SO DC’s reasons for refusal they applied when determining the relevant applications . Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 129. Pursuant to Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, local planning authorities and other decision makers should first have regard to the development plan and then to any ot her material considerations. 130. If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise . 131. In the above context, I have found that the appellant demonstrates full compliance with the adopted development plan for the area , taken as a whole , bearing in mind all opposing contentions made . 132. As the appeal proposals com ply with the d evelopment p lan , subsequently it leads me to apply paragraph 11 (c) of the Framework which m eans that planning permission should be granted without delay. 133. But in any event, having regard to all risks and overall impacts t he positive impacts involved would outweigh the negative . Th e direct benefits arising relative to all considerations give me s trong enough reasons to allow the appeals . There are no other considerations of sufficient weight ( including resultant carbon emissions , embedded carbon and the overall environmental impacts) counting against the proposals within each of the appeals to conclude otherwise. 134. For the reasons set out above Appeals A, B and C all succeed . M Shrigley INSPECTOR APPEARANCES FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Michael Bedford KC WHO CALLED: Tony Clothier PhD Eng(Civil) BSc Eng(Civil) CEng CEnv CWEM Drainage/ f lood risk witness James Dodds BSc DUC MSc CGeol FGS FIQ Hydrogeology witness Richard Brinkworth B E ng CEng MICE ROGEP Ground engineering w itness Stephen Jupp BA LLM MRTPI Planning w itness Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 FOR THE RULE 6 PARTY: Richard Banwell Counsel WHO CALLED: Paul Eccleston BA(Hons) CertWEM CWEM MCIWEM Drainage/flood risk w itness Beverley Parrish BSc(Hons) MSc FGS Cgeol FEMA GSL Geology, h ydrogeology & e nvironmental r isk witness FOR THE APPELLANT: Sasha White KC Andrew Parkinson WHO CALLED: Hannah Fraser BA ( Hons ) MSc FGS C G eol SiLC Hydrogeology witness Dr Clive Edmonds Engineering geology w itness Andrew Dunhill BSc CEng MIMMM Grouting witness Leigh Abley Drainage/ engineering witness Emma Philpott C Eng CWEM MCIWEM Flood r isk w itness Michael Knott BA(Hons) MRTPI Planning w itness DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE INQUIRY: 1) Appellant’s Opening 2) Rule 6 Party Opening 3) Council’s Openin g 4) Manual for the production of groundwater source protection zones 5) Vertase geotechnical response letter 6) Drinking Water Protected Areas - challenges for the water environment document Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 20 7) Draft deed of variation / list of planning conditions and revisions 8) s106/s278 clarification /explanation email note 9) Written closings of the Council 10) Written closings of the Rule 6 Party 11) Written closings of the Appellant 12) Completed deed of variation 13) EIA addendum consultation responses from E nvironment Agency/ Natural England DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED POST CLOSURE OF THE INQUIRY: 1) Appellant’s clarification of planning condition wording s they have agreed to. Schedule of Planning Conditions for Appeal A only : APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696 1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the following approved plans : CB_81_152_TCPA_000 - Location Plan ; D1827_66 Rev G - Site Layout Plan ; D1827_66 Rev F - Proposed Drill and Grout Plan ; 1150 - KC - XXYTREE - TCP01 Rev J - Tree Constraints Plan . E xcept as controlled or modified by conditions of this permission. 3) Prior to the commencement of the development a detailed Source Protection Strategy (SPS) , including a monitoring programme, shall be submitted to and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The SPS shall include details of measures to ensure the water abstraction source is not detrimentally affected by the proposed development both during and after its construction, shall be supported by detailed calculations, and include a programme for future main tenance. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme. 4) If any significant impact to the water environment, arising from the development, is found during the monitoring programme, a Remediation Scheme specifying the measures to be taken to remediate the impact shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The Remediation Scheme, as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved timetable of works. Any variation to the scheme shall be agreed in writing with the L ocal Planning Authority in advance of works being undertaken. On completion of the works the developer shall submit to the Local Planning Authority a Verification Report(s) with evidence confirming that all works were completed in accordance with the agreed de tails. Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 21 5) Prior to the commencement of the development, a full and detailed surface water drainage design based on testing in accordance with BS EN ISO 22282 - 2:2012 and CIRIA Report C753 SuDS Manual Chapter 25.3 shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) . The infiltration assessment shall observe how the infiltration performs at the precise position of the dispersal point and a procedure shall be submitted to , and approved by the LPA , to demonstrate how monitoring following each rainfall event will be recorded and submitted to the LPA as part of the evidence base for the final design. The surface water drainage scheme shall include details of management systems that will be implemented during the grouting works to manage any potential contamination in surface water runoff. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details 6) Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed monitoring program for the performance of the outfall should be submitted to , and approved , by the L ocal P lanning A uthority . The monitoring program should include protocols in the event that the water at the outfall is deemed to be polluted with silt or other contaminants, or in the event that the water overtops and contributes to additional flooding on Reading road or the res idents to the East of Reading Road. 7) Prior to the commencement of the development, including vegetation clearance or ground works, a programme detailing when the soil stripping and respreading will take place shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The phasing of the of works shall take account of recommendations in Soil Resource Survey (Tim O'Hare Associates dated December 2024) and the works shall be carried out in accordance with the Soil Management Strategy (Tim O'Hare , March 2025). 8) Prior to the commencement of the development, including vegetation clearance or ground works, an updated construction environmental management plan for Biodiversity (CEMP: Biodiversity) shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall, as far as reasonably possible, be consistent with the 2019 CEMP (Ecology Solutions , dated January 2019) but shall consider the updated site baseline surveys described in the Ecological Assessment Report (Ecology So lutions , dated December 2024) . It shall include the following: a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities. b) Identification of biodiversity protection zones. c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid, reduce or mitigate the impacts on important habitats (retained boundary woodland and hedgerows) and protected species (roosting bats, badger, hedgehog, nesting birds, rep tiles and amphibians) during construction. d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features. e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works. f) Responsible persons and lines of communication. Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 22 g) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs. The approved CEMP (Biodiversity) shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details. 9) Prior to the commencement of any site works or operations, including demolition and site clearance relating to the development hereby permitted, an Arboricultural Method Statement and accompanying Tree Protection Plan shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The Arboricultural Method Statement must include the following: a) A specification of any pruning or tree surgery works to any trees to be retained, to prevent accidental damage by construction or demolition activities; b) The specification and location of temporary tree protective fencing and any ground protection required to protect all retained trees in accordance with the current edition of BS 5837 ''Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction'', and details of the timing and duration of its erection; c) The definition of areas for the storage or stockpiling of materials, temporary on - site parking, site offices and huts, mixing of cement or concrete, and fuel storage; d) The means of demolition of any existing site structures, and of the re - instatement of the area currently occupied thereby; e) The route and method of installation of drainage or any underground services in the vicinity of retained trees; f) Consideration will be made to avoid siting of utilities and service runs within the Root Protection Area (RPA) of all trees to be retained. Only where it can be demonstrated that there is no alternative location for the laying of utilities, will encroachme nt into the RPA be considered. Methodology for any installation works within the RPA will be provided and must be in compliance with the current edition of NJUG 'Guidelines for the planning and installation and maintenance of utility apparatus in proximity to trees' ; g) The details and method of construction of any other structures such as boundary walls in the RPA of retained trees and how these relate to existing ground levels; h) The details of materials and method of construction of any roadway, driveway, parking, pathway or other surfacing within the RPA, which is to be of a ' n o d ig' construction method, in accordance with the principles with in Arboricultural Association Guidance Note 12 "The use of cellular confinement systems near trees" and in accordance with current industry best practice; and is appropriate for the type of ro adway required in relation to its usage. i) Provision for the supervision of any works within the RPA of trees to be retained, and for the monitoring of continuing compliance with the protective measures specified, by an appropriately qualified arboricultural consultant, to be appointed at the developer's expense and notified to the L ocal Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of development; and provision for the Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 23 regular reporting of continued compliance or any departure there from to the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details with the agreed measures being kept in place during the entire course of development. 10) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details in the Outline Project Method Statement (Vertase FLI Dated December 2024) and the Specification for the Stabilisation of Dissolution Features (Vertase FLI dated November 2024). As detailed in these reports, there shall be no grouting below the water table and the grout shall not contain any ingredients that have the potential to contaminate the groundwater (including Pulverised Fuel Ash). 11) No piling shall take place in association with the approved development (engineering operations associated with ground stabilisation works) hereby approved. 12) The development shall be implemented in accordance with the mitigation measures outlined in the Air Quality Assessment (Stantec , dated August 2024). 13) The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the measures outlined in the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) (Abley Letchford Partnership dated August 2024 ref: Report A253/R011 rev A). The CTMP shall be implemented prio r to any works being carried out on site and shall be maintained throughout the course of the development. 14) No development shall commence on site (including any works of demolition), until a Construction Method Statement (C MS) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The CMS shall include the following: a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; b) loading and unloading of plant and materials; c) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; d) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; e) wheel washing facilities; f) measures to control the emission of dust dirt during construction; g) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; h) measures for the protection of the natural environment; i) hours of construction to be limited to between 8am and 6pm on Mondays to Fridays and between 8am to 1pm on Saturdays. No work shall be undertaken on Sundays and Public Holidays ; The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved construction methods. Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 24 End of Schedule for Appeal A Schedule of Planning Conditions f or Appeal B only : APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 1) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the following approved plans : CB_81_152_S73_000 Rev A – Site Location Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_001 Rev D – Planning Layout ; CB_81_152_S73_002 Rev D – Land Use Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_003 Rev D – Housing Mix Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_004 Rev D – Affordable Housing Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_005 Rev D – Building Heights Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_006 Rev D – Parking Strategy Layout ; CB_81_152_S73_007 Rev D – Bin and Cycle Store Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_008 Rev D – External Finishes Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_907 Rev D – Garden Areas Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_908 Rev D – Character Areas Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_909 Rev D – Solar Panel Plan ; CSA/4049/100 - Rev H – Hard Landscape Proposals (1 of 3) ; CSA/4049/101 - Rev H – Hard Landscape Proposals (2 of 3) ; CSA/4049/102 - Rev H – Hard Landscape Proposals (3 of 3) ; CSA/4049/103 - Rev J – Soft Landscape Proposals (1 of 3) ; CSA/4049/104 - Rev J – Soft Landscape Pro posals (2 of 3) ; CSA/4049/105 - Rev J – Soft Landscape Proposals (3 of 3) ; CSA/4049/106 - Rev C – LAP (Play Area) Proposals ; CSA/4049/107 Rev H – Landscape Masterplan ; CSA/4049/108 Rev E – Frontage Woodland Planting ; CSA/4049/119 - Rev A – SuDS Basin Landscape Section ; 1150 - KC - S73 - YTREE - TPP01 Rev A – Tree Protection Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_BC_01 - Bin and Cycle Storage ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_1BF_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_2BCH_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_2BCH_01 - Elevations & F loor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_ CV_HA_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_ CV_HA_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA21_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA21_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA22_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA22_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA32_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA32_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA45_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA45_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA45_03 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA47_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA47_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA47_03 - Elevations & Floor Plan s; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NT30_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NT30_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NT30_03 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NT31_01 - Elevatio ns & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NT31_NA21_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_PA34_NA22_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_PA34_NA22_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NA21_01 - Elevations & Floor Plan s; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NA22_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 25 CB_81_152_S73_FS_NA22_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NA22_03 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NA34_NA22_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NB32_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NT30_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NT31_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_03 - Elevations & Floor Plan s; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_04 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_05 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_06 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_07 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_08 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_09 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_01 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_02 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_03 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_04 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_05 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_06 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_07 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_08 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SUB_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_WC_HA_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_WC_NA47_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_WC_NA47_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_WC_NT30+_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; A253_S73_101 Rev P3 – General Arrangement ; A253_S73_111 Rev P3 – Levels and Contours ; A253 - S73 - 511 P2 - Drainage Construction Details Sheet 1 ; A253 - S73 - 512 P2 - Drainage Construction Details Sheet 2 ; A253 - S73 - 513 P2 - Drainage Construction Details Sheet 3 ; A253 - S73 - 514 P1 - Drainage Construction Details Sheet 4 ; A253_S73_711 Rev P3 – External Works Sheet 1 ; A253_S73_712 Rev P3 – External Works Sheet 2 ; A253_S73_713 Rev P3 – External Works Sheet 3 ; A253_S73_714 Rev P3 – External Works Sheet 4 ; A253 - S73 - 501 Rev P4 – Section 73 Drainage Layout Sheet 1 ; A253 - S73 - 502 Rev P4 – Section 73 Drainage Layout Sheet 2 ; A253 - S73 - 503 Rev P4 – Section 73 Draina ge Layout Sheet 3 ; A253 - S73 - 504 Rev P4 – Section 73 Drainage Layout Sheet 4 . Except as controlled or modified by conditions of this permission. 2) The landscaping scheme as shown on the approved plans shall be implemented in accordance with the Landscape Management Plan (CSA Environmental dated December 2024) and thereafter be maintained in accordance with this Plan. In the event of any of the trees or shrubs so planted dying or being seriously damaged or destroyed within 5 years of the completion of the development, a new tree or shrub or equivalent number of trees or shrubs, as the case may be, of a species first approved by the Local Planning Autho rity, shall be planted and properly maintained in a position or positions first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 3) Before occupation of any dwelling, a Travel Plan Statement and a Residential Travel Information Pack shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. Within one month of occupation, the first residents of each dwelling shall be provided with a copy of the approved Travel Information Pack. 4) Visibility splays of 2.4m x 25m at the junctions of the internal estate roads within the site shall be provided and maintained at all times. Within the visibility envelopes, no obstructions, inclusive of fencing and boundary walls Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 26 shall exceed 600mm in height and any planting shall be located outside and clear of the visibility envelopes. 5) No dwelling shall be occupied until the vehicular access, footways, cycle ways, driveways and turning areas that serve the dwelling have been constructed, surfaced and drained. The vehicular access, footways, cycle ways, driveways and turning areas provide d for each dwelling shall be retained thereafter. 6) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the measures outlined in the Construction Management Plan (Abley Letchford Partnership dated August 2024 (reference: A253 - R008 rev E) ) . The approved Construction Management Plan shall be complied with throughout the construction period. 7) No further development shall commence beyond the access works already implemented until a Construction Environment Management Plan for Biodiversity (CEMPB) has been submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The approved CEMPB shall be complied with throughout the construction period. 8) No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until visibility splays at the site access, 2.4 metres by 94.6 metres to the north and 2.4 metres by 97.7 metres to the south, have been provided. The visibility splays shall not at any time be obstructed by a ny object, structure, planting or material with a height exceeding 0.9 metres as measured at carriageway level. 9) No further development shall commence, beyond the access works already implemented, until a method statement to address the impact of the development, including lighting around the site boundaries, on the local bat population has been submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The method statement shall be implemented as approved. 10) No further development shall commence, beyond the access works already implemented, until a full drainage scheme detailing all surface drainage works, has been submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme should take account of intended development construction phases. The scheme should be supported by infiltration testing in accordance with with BS EN ISO 22282 - 2:2012 and CIRIA Report C753 SuDS Manual Chapter 25 .3 for BRE365 for all infiltration features, and features and carried out at the base of the infiltration feature in accordance with best practices. The approved s trategy shall be fully implemented. 11) Development shall be carried out in full compliance with the submitted foul drainage details. No dwelling shall be occupied until the foul water drainage design that serves that dwelling has been completed and brought into use . 12) A Verification Report should be prepared for each phase of the development by a suitably - qualified professional to confirm that construction has been carried out in accordance with the approved plans, and submitted to the LPA for approval. No dwelling shal l be occupied until the foul and surface water drainage for the construction phase in which the dwelling resides, has been completed in accordance with the approved plans, as set out in the Verification Report and brought into use. 13) No dwelling shall be occupied until confirmation of all adoption arrangements under Section 104 of the Water Industry Act (1991), including full Technical Approval has be en provided in writing to the Local Planning Authority . Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 27 14) No development above slab level shall commence until details of the fencing to the pumping station shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The fencing shall be implemented as approved and retained as such thereafter. 15) No further development shall commence beyond the access works already implemented on site until a full and detailed design for the attenuation basins has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the L ocal P lanning A uthority . This shall include: ( a ) infiltration testing in accordance with BS EN ISO 22282 - 2:2012 and upon CIRIA Report C753 SuDS Manual Chapter 25.3 at the base of the infiltration feature; ( b ) inspection on site by a suitably qualified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to assess any evidence of solution features; ( c ) geotechnical/structural design of the base to the water basin itself to accommodate loadings and to counter any possible ground movements if required; infiltration design based upon BRE365 at the base of the infiltration feature; ( d ) structural design of the base to the water basin itself to accommodate loadings and to counter any possible ground movements; ( e ) provisions for long term maintenance of the basin including access arrangements for servicing of forebay and all manholes; and ( f ) designs and slope stability analysis demonstrating compliance with EC7 for the slopes of the upper attenuation basin; and, ( g ) details of provision for telemetry to mitigate the risk of overtopping . No works (excluding Enabling Works) above ground level shall be carried out until the attenuation basin has been constructed in accordance with the approved details and the associated connections to the approved pumping station completed and are operationa l. 16) No further development shall commence beyond the access works already implemented until a noise assessment for the pumping station has been submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. Where necessary, following approval of the noise assessment the applicant must submit a detailed scheme to control the noise which must be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme must then be implemented and maintained for the duration of the development. 17) No further development shall commence, beyond the access works already implemented, until the ground stabilisation works granted under planning permission P24/2642/FUL have been completed, and the verification reports required under condition 4 of th e permission has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority. End of Schedule for Appeal B⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Conclusion 126. I appreciate SO DC’s and TFAG’s submissions reflect the material difficulties in developing the appeal site , requiring due scrutiny particularly in light of all detected shortfalls . 127. Even so, I must make clear a decision on the appeal case s in dispute is not an opportunity to go behind the principle of allowing housing development already granted to the appellant. The starting point for any decision maker is that such principle has already been formally established . 128. When assessed I find that the technical deficiencies in the appellant’s proposals are not strong enough reasons to resist the appeals. In totality, allowing for planning condition and legal agreement use , I find that there is adequate information available regarding the risks to local water resources and the PWS . The collective stabilisation, ground stability, pollution, drainage and flood risk impacts would be acceptable. A s well as there being reasonable mechanisms available to facilitate PWS and wider locality protection s meeting SO DC’s reasons for refusal they applied when determining the relevant applications . Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3372038 (Cornwall Council) — 2026-05-28
📍 Cornwall Council LPA code: E06000052 PINS reference: 3372038 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 April 2026 by D R Kay BA Dip.Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/W/25/3372038 Land South West Of Rubys Retreat, Trehaddle, Cusgarne, Truro, Cornwall TR4 8RN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant permission in principle. • The appeal is made by Ms. Manners against the decision of Cornwall Council. • The application Ref is PA25/04873. • The development proposed is a proposed housing scheme of up to 2 dwellings. (minimum of 1, maximum of 2). Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising a minimum of one and a maximum of two dwellings, at land south west of Rubys Retreat, Trehaddle, Cusgarne, Truro, Cornwall TR4 8RN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/04873. Preliminary Matters 2. The proposal is for permission in principle. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing - led development. The permission in principle (PIP) consent route has two stages: the firs t establishes whether a site is suitable in - principle and the second (technical details consent - TDC) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages. 3. The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application , if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal on this basis. Procedural Issues 4. Certain types of development are excluded from the grant of permission in principle. Habitat development is one such exclusion 1 which is defined by Article 5B(5) of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended) (hereafter referred to as the Order) as including development, which discounting mitigation measures, is likely to have a significant effect on a qualifying European site under the Conservation of H a bitat s and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (hereafter referred to as the Habitat s Regulations). 1 Article 5B(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended). Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3372038 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 5. H aving regard to my duties as c ompetent a uthority under the Habitats Regulations, for the purposes of this appeal, an appropriate assessment should be undertaken at the outset to establish whether the development would adversely affect the integrity of the protected site. If the outcome of the appropriate assessment is unfavourable, it would preclude the grant of permi ssion in principle . 6. The appeal site is within the buffer zone of the Fal and Hel ford Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The SAC covers a wide area of a ria (drowned river valley) system , which includ es several component Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) . The Habitat site is recognised for its national and international importance for nature conservation. Its qualifying feature s are its su btidal sandbanks, estuaries, intertidal mudflats and sandflats , its large shallow inlets and bays , r eefs , and Atlantic salt meadow s with important populations of Shore dock. 7. It has been established that residential development within the buffer zone would likely result in harm to the SAC through additional recreational disturbance. The proposal would create a net gain of between one and two dwelling s and, in combination with other developments permitted in the area, there would be a likely significant adverse effect on the Habitat sites , without mitigation . 8. Policy 22 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 – 2030 (adopted 2016) ( the CLP ) , requires mitigation of recreational impacts f rom residential development on European Protected Sites . This is implemented by the European Sites Mitigation - Supplementary Planning Document 2021 ( ESM - SPD) , agreed by the Council with Natural England (NE) . This sets out a strategic approach to mitigation by implementation of a tariff style financial contribution made per dwelling, towards a range of mitigation and avoidance measures. 9. The main parties agree that a tariff style contribution towards the above - mentioned mitigation measures would be appropriate and would accord with the ESM - SPD. The Council has confirmed that the appellant has su bmitted a completed Appropriate Assessment template , has paid the required contribution which is detailed in an undertaking pursuant to Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) . I have no reason t o find otherwise. 10. Natural England has been consulted as part of this appropriate assessment and has confirmed it is content that the financial contribution secured by the S111 Agreement , which aligns with the Council’s adopted strategy, would address the adverse effects associated with the proposed development and would thereby relieve pressure on the Habitat site. Given their specialist knowledge, this attracts considerable weight. 11. As competent authority, I am satisfied that the S111 Agreement would secure and ensure delivery of mitigation, sufficient to address the harm likely to be caused by the development. I therefore find that, subject to the proposed mitigation, the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Habitat site, in accordance with both regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and Policy 22 of the CLP . 12. Therefore, having undertaken a favourable appropriate assessment, and noting there is sufficient certainty that adequate mitigation is secured, the proposal would not constitute habitats development. Consequently, it can be considered under the permission in principle procedure. Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3372038 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 Main Issue 13. Th e main issue i s whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location , the proposed land use and the amount of development . Reasons 14. The appeal site comprises a roughly triangular shaped parcel of land described as being around 0.10 hectares in area. It is located to the north side of the road which runs through Trehaddle . To the south side of the road are several detached properties , which sit in elevated positions relative to the highway , and which continue in an unbroken line of development , from a position around 150 metres east of the appeal site, to a position around 150 metres west of the appeal site. To the immediate east of the appeal site , on the northern side of the road, is a property known as ‘ Ruby’s Retreat ’ together with a further property known as ‘Chy Gover’ to its east. 15. The appeal site ’s southern boundary with the road has a dense belt of substantially evergreen trees running along much of its length, save for a section where a fi e ld gate provides access from the highway to the land. The site ’ s northern boundary is defined by a dense Corni s h hedge with interspersed trees, and beyond this , is a stream which separates the appeal site from the open landscape beyond . This stream defines the triangular shape of the site, the stream conti n uing immediately alongside the highway f rom the western - most end of the site , as it travels west out of the hamlet . The site’s eastern boundary with Ruby’s R etreat is a mix of hedge s , tree s and fence s . The site wa s sign ificantly overgrown at my visit, though two small caravans , of some age , were visible within the site . 16. Policy 2 of the Local Plan defines the spatial strategy for development. It seeks to maintain the dispersed development pattern of Cornwall, providing homes and jobs relative to the function of each place. Policy 3 outlines how development will be accommodated, with growth focussed primarily on main towns identified within the policy . However, it also supports housing growth through identification of sites within Neighbourhood Plans, within or adjoining smaller settlements through infill schemes ; through de velopment of previously developed land (PDL); through rounding off ; or through rural exception sites. 17. The appeal site is within Trehaddle, a hamlet wh ose development boundary is identified as the western area of development on ‘ Map 4 – Cusgarne Development Boundary ’ in the Gwenapp Neighbourhood Development Plan 2019 – 2030 (2020) (the NDP) . The appeal site sits outside the development boundary defined on Map 4 , though it adjoins the boundary to its east and south . T he site occupies a locat ion which is central to the extent of development in th e Trehaddle section of the Cusgarne development boundary . However, i n policy terms, the site is classed as being open countryside . 18. Whilst the appellant notes the previous siting of caravans for recreational use of the site , which were still present at my visit, and to someone previously residing there for a short while, the main parties ag r e e that it is not PDL. The site is not being advanced as a rural exception site under Policy 9 of the CLP , nor doe s it seek to comply with the exceptions to housing in the countryside which would have gained support from Policy 7 of the CLP . Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3372038 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 19. Policy 3 of the CLP provides support for ‘ infill ’ sites for one to two dwellings in smaller villages and hamlets , together with ‘rounding off’ development via paragraph 1.68 . Infill development is defined in p aragraph 1.65 as the filling of a small gap in an otherwise continuously built - up frontage that does not physically extend the settlement into the open countryside . A Chief Planning Officer’s Advice Note (CPOAN) also gives further guidance in relation to infilling and rounding off , as an aid to decision making. 20. Having examined the appeal site , I find it would not represent infill development, owing to the lack of development to its west, and would, th erefore , not be a gap within a continuously built - up frontage , and would conflict with advice within the CPOAN and with Policy 3 of the CLP in this regard. 21. It is therefore necessary to establish whether the proposal would represent ‘rounding off’ development under Policy 3 of the CLP . Rounding off is defined in paragraph 1.68 as development on land that is substantially enclosed but outside of the urban form of a settlement . The CPOAN advises that proposals must be adjacent to existing development and be contained within long standing and enclosing boundary features , for example a road, Cornish hedge or stream. Suitable sites are likely to be surrounded on at least two sides by existing built development. Development resulting in the creation of a further site for rounding off is unlikely to be rounding off in itself. 22. The appeal site is outside the defined settlement boundary . However, it sits at the centre of the hamlet, with built residential development to two of its sides. The site is substantially enclosed to all three of its boundaries, by a road and mature evergreen tree belt to its southern boundary , by a Devon hedge , trees and fence to its eastern boundary, and by a dense Devon hedge with a stream immediately adjacent to the Devon hedge , on its north western boundary, which both defines the triangular shape of the site , and restricts any possibility of further rounding off to the west , which would otherwise extend development into open countryside. I therefore find that the appeal site would meet with the de finit io ns of rounding off development in paragraph 1.68 of the CLP , Policy H4 of the NDP and the CPOAN . It would , therefore , accord with Policy 3 of the CLP and Policy H4 of the NDP . 23. Despite its spatial policy definition, the site is not in an isolated location but is proximate to the developed area of the hamlet . Whilst the hamlet itself has no facilities , it is located within 600 metres walking distance of Cusgarne , a village which has a primary school and farm shop , and further facilities are available a t Frogpool , which lies 750 metres south - east of the appeal site . T he towns of Redruth and Truro are within 5km and 7km respectively, for access to further facilities, services and employment opportunities . It would therefore meet the requirements of p aragraph 1.68 of Policy 3 of the CLP , for development to be acceptable within smaller villages and hamlets, as confirmed by t he CPOAN . 24. Whilst the location of the proposal will result in the reliance of future occupiers of the site on the private motor car , the CPOAN acknowledge s that within a rural place like Cornwall, other than in its cit y or its towns , it is unrealistic for public transport, walking and cycling to meet all of resident’s transport needs alone. This i s also ack nowledged by paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) . Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3372038 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 25. There is no dispute between the parties, that the site is of a sufficient size to accommodate between one and two dwellings , whilst maintaining acceptable separation from adjacent properties to safeguard privacy and outlook. It would also provide sufficient space for vehicular access, turning and parking, together with acceptable external amenity space for future occupiers, an d for landscaping to meet the required minimum 10% Biodiversity Net Gains. These are all elements that would be dealt with at the TDC stage, were permission in principle to be granted. Therefore, I find that the amount of development would be acceptable. Other Matters 26. There were a number of representations made to the application, most in objection, including the G wenapp Parish Council. I have addressed a number of these concerns already. However, those relating to the potential effects of future development on drainage and flood risk , on vehicular access and highway safety, on contaminat ed land and instability are all matters that would be addressed at the TDC application stage , were the appeal to be allowed . Planning Balance 27. The Council have identified they have a 5 - year housing land supply (5YHLS) deficit at 3 .9 years. Accordingly, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged for decision making purposes . As I have found that any effect s of the proposal on Habitat sites can be satisfactorily mitigated, t here are no assets as referenced in paragraph 11(d)(i) and footnote 7 of the Framework that would provide a strong reason for refusal . 28. Accordingly , the test set out in paragraph 11(d)(ii) applies, which states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken a s a whole, including the key policies cited. 29. The proposal would make a small but positive contribution to the Council's housing land supply shortfall through a windfall site. There would be some limited economic benefit during the construction phase of development, and longer - term benefits in support of local services and businesses from its future occupants. 30. In policy terms, the site conflicts with the spatial strategy of the development plan. However, in circumstances where the Council’s housing delivery policies have acted to restrict the supply of homes, I do not find the site’s position, technically in ope n countryside, to be decisive to the outcome of this appeal. T he site is within a hamlet setting, with residential d evelopment to two sides . I have found it would accord with the rounding off settlements policy of the development plan. 31. The site has significant screening from well - defined mature bou ndaries , together with a stream adjacent to its northern boundary, which w ould act to restrict further development . I do not find that developing the site for a minimum of one and a maximum of two dwelling s , would harmfully encroach into open countryside. 32. Consequently, the adverse impacts of the proposal associated with its location in open countryside and conflict with some policies of the C LP , would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3372038 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 development applies, which is a significant material consideration that weighs heavily in favour of allowing the appeal. Conditions 33. The PPG makes clear that conditions cannot be attached to a grant of permission in principle , and its terms may only include the site location, the land use and amount of development. Where permission in principle is granted by application , the default duration of that permission is 3 years. Applications for technical details consent must be determined within the duration of the permission granted. Therefore, no conditions have been imposed. Conclusion 34. The proposed development would conflict with the development plan . However , material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. D R Kay INSPECTOR⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
The Council have identified they have a 5 - year housing land supply (5YHLS) deficit at 3 .9 years. Accordingly, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged for decision making purposes . As I have found that any effect s of the proposal on Habitat sites can be satisfactorily mitigated, t here are no assets as referenced in paragraph 11(d)(i) and footnote 7 of the Framework that would provide a strong reason for refusal . 28. Accordingly , the test set out in paragraph 11(d)(ii) applies, which states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken a s a whole, including the key policies cited. 29. The proposal would make a small but positive contribution to the Council's housing land supply shortfall through a windfall site. There would be some limited economic benefit during the construction phase of development, and longer - term benefits in support of local services and businesses from its future occupants. 30. In policy terms, the site conflicts with the spatial strategy of the development plan. However, in circumstances where the Counc…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3376539 (Bedford Borough Council) — 2026-05-26
📍 Bedford Borough Council LPA code: E06000055 PINS reference: 3376539 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Hearing held on 28 April 2026 Site visit made on 2 9 April 2026 by E Catcheside BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 nd May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 Land to the E ast of Duck End Lane, Wilstead Grid Reference Easting: 506245, Grid Reference Northing: 244034 • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Kler Group Limited against Bedford Borough Council. • The application reference is 24/01566/MAO. • The development proposed is: Outline application with all matters reserved, except access, for the erection of up to 149 dwellings and associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for outline application with all matters reserved, except access, for the erection of up to 149 dwellings and associated works at Land to the E ast of Duck End Lane, Wilstead (Grid Reference Easting: 506245, Grid Reference Northing: 244034) in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 24/01566/MAO, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. The application sought outline permission , with all matters reserved except for access. Appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale are reserved matters to be considered through future applications. 3. In addition to the approved plans listed in condition 1 , a ‘Parameter Plan’ is provided which shows the areas for development and the area s for public open space and countryside edge buffers , as well as the maximum heights of buildings. It is proposed that a condition would require reserved matters applications to come forward in accordance with the details shown on the Parameter Plan and I have considered the appeal on this basis . However, b ecause layout is a reserved matter, I have treated the layout deta ils shown on t he Parameter Plan as illustrative rather than fixed . For the avoidance of doubt, I have also considered the Indicative Masterplan to be i llustrative only . 4. Although the planning application was considered by the Council’s Planning Committee, the appeal was submitted before the Council had issued its formal decision . Therefore, the appeal is made on the basis that the Council fail ed to determine the planning application with in the prescribed time period. I have considered the Council’s putative reason for refusal in identifying the main issue. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 5. The putative reason for refusal refers to the space between Wilstead and Wixhams as a “strategic gap” , which is the terminology used in the Wilshamstead Neighbourhood Plan (WNP). At the hearing, the parties agreed that the “strategic gap” has the same meaning as the “local gap” referenced in Policy AD42 of the Allocations and Designations Local Plan (July 2013) (ADLP) which is the only adopted development plan policy re lating to the gap between the settlements . I have referred to the gap throughout this dec ision as a “local gap” to reflect the wording in Policy AD42. However, I have also had regard to the objectives of the WNP and the associated commentary and mapping information relating to “strategic gap s ”, includ ing at Appendix A of the WNP . 6. A draft S106 agreement was discussed at the hearing , and a completed and executed version of the agreement was provided shortly after the event . A revised agreed schedule of conditions was also provided after the hearing, which sought to address issues raised during the discussions at the event. I shall set out my approach to the planning obligation and the conditions later in this decision . Main Issue 7. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the local gap designation and on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons Background and context 8. The appeal site comprises a n arable field, located between Cawne Close on the edge of Wilstead and Duck End Lane . B edford Road borders the site to the southwest, beyond which there are fields and then the A6 road which heads north to Bedford . The village extends roughly southwards and eastwards from Cawne Close , whilst land to the northeast and east of the site comprises mainly fields interspersed with hedgerows and pockets of woodland. Th is large - scale landscape with expansive views is characteristic of the East Marston Clay Vale s 1 that surround Wilstead and forms a key part of its rural setting. 9. There are a few dwellings and some commercial buildings on Duck End Lane . Together with the short ribbon of homes nearby on Bedford Road, th e dwellings near to the Duck End Lane junction form an area known as “Duck End”. Duck End is separated from the A6 and its roundabout junction with Bedford Road by fields. 10. Appendix A of the WNP explains the role of the appeal site in maintaining the traditional form of the village by separating the heart of Wilstead from Duck End, which , as an “End” cluster of dwellings was once a separate hamlet . The farmland character of the appeal site contributes further to the rural identity of Wilstead ; and the absence of buildings within the site allow s for long - reaching views from the village across the wider landscape towards the historic Cardington Hangers, which is identified as a key view in the text of the WNP. The site, therefore, makes a valuable contribution to the hist oric, rural character and the identi t y of Wilstead . 11. The plan appended to the Council’s Landscape Appeal Statement shows that Wixhams , a new settlement of up to 4500 dwellings with a town centre and community facilities , will occupy a large area of land on the other side of the A6 , extending westwards to the railway line . At the time of my site visit, the planned 1 As described in the Bedford Borough Landscape Character Assessment (May 2014, Updated October 2020) Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 area of Wixams that lies closest to the A6 , and therefore to Wilstead, w as at an advanced stage of construction . 12. At the hearing, the parties agreed that the extract from the Local Plan 2030 (BBLP ) and the ADLP Policies Map as it is shown in the Council’s Statement of Case should be relied upon to identify the L ocal G ap between Wilstead and Wixhams as it is designated in the ADLP. The parties agree that the gap, measured along a straight line roughly from Cawne Close , through the appeal site, to the A6 south of the roundabout is 725m. This aligns with the accompanying text to Policy AD42 of the ADLP, which refers to th e gap as “ less than 800m ” . 13. Appendix A of the WNP seeks to provide further defin ition as to the parcels that make up the protected gap between the two settlements. These parcels include most, albeit not all, of the undeveloped land between the A6 road and Wilstead to the west and northwest of the village . Parcels “SG2”, “SG3” and “SG4” encompass land between Bedford Road and the A6 road; whereas parcels “SG1” and the appeal site (parcel “SG5”) are located to the north of Bedford Road and encapsulate land between Duck End Lane and the A6 and between Wilstead and Duck End Lane , respectively . 14. Policy AD42 of the ADLP states that development will not be permitted in a local gap which, because of the nature of the proposal: i. diminishes the gap physically or visually; or ii. changes its character adversely; or iii. compromises the inte grity of the gap, either individually or cumulatively with other existing or proposed development; or iv. harms the character, setting or identity of any settlements separated by the gap. 15. The accompanying text to Policy AD42 explains that the objectives of the policy are to prevent the coalescence of settlements, to maintain the predominantly open and undeveloped character of the gap, and to protect the separate character and identity of se ttlements including their setting. Effects of the proposal 16. T he development would elongate the built - up area of Wilstead in a north - westerly direction , bringing it closer to the boundary of Wixams . Thus, the size of the gap between the two settlements would be physically diminished . 17. Moreover, the depletion of the wide, undeveloped space between Wilstead and Duck End would alter the visual and perceptual experience of the Local Gap when moving along Bedford Road in either direction. The change would be particularly noticeable when approaching Wilstead from Wixhams, where the development would come into view when passing the Duck End properties on Bedford Road . Moving in the opposite direction, the experience of being within a built - up area would be extended until a point near to Duck En d Lane . This is because the buil ding s and infrastructure associated with up to 1 49 dwellings would , in all reasonable likelihood, be of a scale and density that w ould be apparent through the site access and in views over and through the roadside landscaping . Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 18. It follows that the sense of arriving at or departing from Wilstead would occur at a point that is much closer to Wixhams than is currently the case. There would, therefore, be some depletion of the Local Gap in visual and perceptual terms . 19. That said, there would still be a broad area of undeveloped space between the new built - up edge of Wilstead and the A6, with Wixams further b eyond that . Indeed, the width and verdancy of the other undeveloped spaces beside this part of Bedford Road , notably those within parcels SG1, SG2 , SG3 , and SG4, would ensure the preservation of a clear gap between Wilstead and Wixhams , which would be experienced when moving between the A6 underpass and Wilstead on foot or by bicycle, or when travelling in a vehicle between Wilstead and the A6 roundabout. The curvature of Bedford Road would further assist in safeguard ing the Local Gap , because it would impede inter visibility between the development and the area near to the A6 underpass . 20. Views of the development from the Public Right of Way (PRoW) 3 to the south of Vicarage Farm would be limited due to the presence of intervening buildings, trees, and hedgerows. Furthermore, the footpath here crosses a series of fields and the A6 road and , given the distance between the nearest properties on Bedford Road and th ose in Wixams, the footpath has the character of a countryside walk between two settlements. This character would not be altered by the proposal due to its siting on the other side of Bedf ord Road , and the sense of separation between Wilstead and Wixams from PRoW 3 would be retained. 21. Due to the intervening fields and hedgerows, the development would have a discrete presence in long - distance views from the footpath network to the north - east of the site , such that there would be no harm caused to the character of the landscape beyond the local level . I t would have greater prominence in shorter distance views , specifically from PRoW 13 beyond the end of Duck End Lane. The built form of Wixams is also apparent from th is vantage point. However, so too is the undeveloped landscape between and around the settlements that would be unaffected by the proposal. Consequently, there would be no sense from PRoW 13 of Wilstead and Wixams coming together as one entity even though the development would be visible within the landscape . 22. Even though landscaping is proposed, the erection of up to 149 homes with associated infrastructure would harmfully urbanise the appeal site and there would be some loss of visual connectivity between the nearest parts of the village and the wider landscape. Moreover, w hilst the proposed open space would ensure th e retention of a gap between the new development and Duck End , the existing space would be significantly reduce d, and it would be particularly narrow ed where the rear boundary of Dove Cottage cut s into the appeal site field . Consequently, the sense of Wilstead and Duck End as historically discrete entities would be less pronounced tha n is currently the case. Overall, the proposal would have a localised yet eroding effect on the rural character and historic identity of Wilstead. 23. The proposed layout of the development is not before me at this outline stage. However, the developable area shown on the Parameter Plan would allow for the built form to extend further beyond the northern edge of Wilstead than the proposed layout for 95 homes on land north of Cotton End Road 2 . However, w hilst much of the development in the village fronts the through routes of Bedford Road, 2 Granted under outline p lanning permission number 24/02231/MAO Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 Luton Road, and Cotton End Road, this is not universally the case. I observed some parts of the village that extend deeply from the se main routes, including the area around Whitworth Way . Therefore, I see no reason why a detailed layout could not come forward in a manner that responds positively to the layout of existing dwellings in the village. 24. Overall, whilst the Local Gap would retain integrity s o that the proposal would not cause the coalescence of Wilstead and Wixhams , it would be diminished physically and visually and there would be adverse changes to its character. Moreover, the encroachment of the site into the countryside setting of Wilstead and the erosion of the separation space between Wilstead and Duck End would cause harm to the character, setting , and identity of Wilstead. It follows that there would be unequivocal conflict with Policy AD42 of the ADLP. The proposal would also run counter to the aims and objectives of the WNP, insofar as it seeks to retain and enhance the setting, character, and identity of Wilstead and to maintain the separation between Wilstead and Duck End . Other C onsiderations Spatial strategy 25. The spatial strategy for the Borough set out in Policy 3S of the BBLP seeks to direct development towards larger settlements, with limited development in designated key service centres , which includ e Wilstead . The site , however, lies outside of the settlement boundary of Wilstead and is therefore in the countryside for planning policy purposes. Policy 7S of the BBLP sets out the circumstances in which development outside of defined settlement boundaries will be permitted, none of which apply to the proposal. Consequently, the re would be conflict with the provisions for development in the countryside set out in Policy 7S of the BBLP . Heritage assets 26. There are several listed buildings in the vicinity of the appeal sit e, inclu ding the Grade II listed buildings known as Dove Cottage 3 , Duck End Farm House 4 , and Duck End Barn 5 . Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special regard to be had to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their setting s , and any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. 27. Dove Cottage is a timber - framed building with painted roughcast walls and a timber shingle roof, which could once have been thatched . The list entry suggests that the building dates from the 17 th Century although , from the information before me, it did not appear in mapping evidence until later . It is thought that the cottage was once subdivided into two agricultural worker’s dwellings before it was extended and amalgamated into a single property. The building has special architectural and historic interest due, in part, to its age, plan form, and its vernacular construction which reveal information about rural life and construction methods from the period in which it originated. 28. According to the list entry and the evidence , Duck End Farm House originates from the 18 th Century and was extended in the 19 th Century. The large size and 3 List entry number 1114204 4 List entry number 1321586 5 List entry number 1114203 Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 brick construction of the farmhouse provide evidence of its evolution through a profitable period in farming, and past architectural trends . Along with its age, these features of the building contribute to its special architectural and historic interest . 29. Duck End Barn , which is thought to date from circa 1800 , has special interest as a former threshing barn and its age and surviving historic fabric provid e evidence of historic farming practices and construction techniques. The farmhouse and b arn are closely related as part of a former farmstead such that they have group value , which contributes further to their significance. 30. It is common ground that the listed building s on Duck End Lane also gain significance from their settings ; and I agree . T he surrounding fields and the narrow, tree - lined nature of Duck End Lane provide important visual and experiential indications of the agricultural history of the buildings and the area. Moreover, the physical relationship between the buildings , and their separation from the core of Wilstead enables them to be experienced as a n ‘end’ settlement, reflective of the historic settlement patter n in this area. The undeveloped nature of the appeal site contributes to this sense of separation , and it also offers a visual and spatial connection between these buildings and the wider rural landscape, Consequently, the site is an element of the setting of each of these buildings that contributes to their overall significance and special interest. 31. The proposed development would have a close, physical relationship with the built - up edge of Wilstead , such that its effects on the wider rural landscape would be limited. Furthermore, there would be no direct change to the country lane character of Duck End Lane, from where the listed buildings would continue to be appreciate d within their rural surrounds. The development would also retain some separation between Wilstead and Duck End through the proposed open space. 32. However, the development would nonetheless bring built form much closer to the listed buildings than is currently the case and, according to the Council, it could come to within 40m of the rear boundary of Duck End Cottage. The proposal would , therefore, have an urbanising effect within proximity to the listed buildings , thus it would fail to preserve the rural character of the ir immediate settings . 33. It is common ground that , through this development within their settings, there would be harm caused to the significance of Dove Cottage, Duck End Farmhouse, and Duck End Barn , and I concur with this conclusion. Owing to the scale and nature of th e setting effects , the harm to the significance of each of these listed buildings would be less than substantial . The Framework requires this harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, and this is a matter that I shall return to later in this decision. 34. The Council identifies that the hedgerows within the site form part of a historic field system and, therefore, they have value as non - designated heritage assets (NDHA s ) . Whilst there would be some loss of hedgerow to facilitate the site access, extensive lengths of hedgerow would be retained within landscaped buffers; which could be secured through conditions and during the consideration of reserved matters applications. I am therefore satisfied that this historic field pattern and the hedgerows would remai n evident , thus the NDHA would be preserved . 35. In addition to the heritage assets referenced above, there are several other historic buildings referred to in the evidence. These include the Grade II listed Vicarage Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 Farmhouse 6 , Manor Farmhouse 7 , and Granary at Manor Farm 8 which have special interest due, in part, to their architecture and historic uses . G iven the distance and intervening built form between the site and these assets , there is very limited visual connecti vity . Therefore, whilst the appeal site lies within the setting of these buildings, it does not contribute to their significance insofar as it is relevant to th is appeal. It is common ground that the setting and significance of these assets would be preserved, and I agree with this conclusion. Accessibility to services and facilities 36. I am mindful of third - party comments, including from the Parish Council, that Wilstead would not provide for the full range of services and facilities to meet the needs of future occupants. F rom the evidence and my observations, there is a primary school, a shop, public houses, food establishments, a village hal l , and a social club within Wilstead, all within a short walking distance from the site. Other retail, community and education facilities are available at Wixams, which could also be reached on foot or by bicycle from the proposed dwellings utilising the enhanced footpaths and cycleways that are proposed as part of the scheme. 37. Where the local services and facilities in Wilstead and Wixhams would not be sufficient in meeting some needs, or where capacity issues may exist, there is a regular, short, bus service to Bedford from Bedford Road, which would be accessible via new footwa y links and a road crossing proposed as part of the development. From here, there would be a wide range of services and facilities commensurate with Bedford’s status as a major town in this area . There are also bus services from here to Milton Keynes, albe it the evidence suggests those services may be less frequent and the journeys longer in duration. 38. Overall, whilst it is inevitable that some residents would choose to travel by private car, I am satisfied that there would be good opportunities for future occupants to meet their daily needs via a range of sustainable transport options. Habitats and protected species 39. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) identified the hedgerows as the most valuable habitats on the site, most of which would be retained. The small areas of hedgerow that would be lost to facilitate access to the site would be compensated for through replacement planting, which would form part of the landscaping proposals to be considered at reserved matters stage. The proposal would also be subject to the statutory requirement to deliver a net gain in biodiversity . 40. Given there is a high likelihood of Great Crested Newts being disturbed by the development, the works would be undertaken under a District Level Newt License. I have seen correspondence from the District Licensing Officer, confirming that the relevant certificate has been submitted and , therefore , I have no reason to doubt that a license would be issued. 41. The site also has the potential to support commuting and foraging bats as well as nesting birds , reptiles, and common am p hibians . The PEA suggests a range of mitigation and enhancement measures in respect of these and other protected 6 List entry number 1114196 7 List entry number 1321583 8 List entry number 1114199 Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 species , which I am satisfied would be sufficient to ensure that any adverse effects would be adequately avoided or mitigated. 42. Overall, I am satisfied that protected species and habitats would not be adversely affected by the proposal and that biodiversity would be enhanced. Foul drainage 43. Anglian Water has stated that the Bedford Water Recycling Centre (WRC) currently does not have the capacity to receive foul flows from the development. However, it also states that Bedford WRC is included within its Business Plan as a named growth scheme, with investment planned between 2025 - 2030. On this basis, Anglian Water has recommended a planning condition to prevent the occupation of the proposed dwellings until there is sufficient headroom at the WRC , with the condition ceasing to have effect after April 2030. 44. I have seen correspondence from Anglian Water made during the lifetime of the application in which it confirmed that it is obligated to accept the foul flows from the development; and that it would take the necessary measures to ensure there would be sufficient treatment capacity if planning permission were granted. Given that t here would be a significant lead in time between the grant of planning permission and the first occupation of the dwellings, I see no reason to conclude that Anglian Water w ould not carry out its planned investment in the WRC before the additional capacity would be required. Indeed, I heard that the first dwellings would not be ready for occupation until 2028/29 , which would be towards the end of Anglian Water’s investment period. 45. The parties ’ views are aligned that the condition suggested by Anglian Water would be un necessary. Due to the fact that Anglian Water is obligated to accept the flows arising from the development , and that it plans to invest in the facility by April 2030 at the latest , I agree that the condition would be unnecessary. For the same reasons, there is no basis for a finding that the foul drainage network would not cater for the development if the appeal were to be allowed . Flooding 46. A small area of the site , near to Duck End Lane, lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3. However, the parameter plan shows that no built development is proposed within this area of flood risk. Rather, t he Flood Risk and Drainage Strategy identifies that the developable area of the site is at a low risk of flooding from all potential sources . Third parties have drawn my attention to some area s of localised pooling on the site. However, the surface water drainage proposals, which could be secured through a condition , would help to ameliorate this. Consequently, there would be no increased risk of flooding arising from the proposal. High way safety and access 47. The development would inevitably generate additional traffic. However, there is authoritative, technical evidence before me to show that there would be no harm caused in terms of highway safety or congestion . T he Highway Authority has not raised any concerns in respect of the proposed access, highway safety , or road and junction capacity ; and I find no convincing reason to depart from the views of th is statutory consultee on highway matters . Overall, I am satisfied that the Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 proposal would safeguard the highway network , and that the access arrangements would be acceptable. Noise and nuisance 48. Concerns were raised during the consultation process about noise levels arising from the nearby bottle bank. Noise levels could feasibly be made acceptable through a combination of detailed measures, including the site layout, landscaping, and the design o f the dwellings, which would be relevant considerations during the determination of reserved matters applications. 49. Any nuisance arising during the construction process would be temporary in duration and could be managed through appropriate construction methods and safeguards, which could be secured through a condition. Therefore, this issue need not be an impediment to the grant of planning permission. A gricultural land 50. The proposal would lead to the loss of agricultural land. However, the Agricultural Land Classification Report indicates that the land is Grade 3b and, therefore, it is not best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the Framework. The proposal would accord with the provisions of the Framework, insofar as it expects poorer quality land to be preferred to higher quality land where there is a necessity for the significant development of agricultural land , as would be the case here. Potential Future Developments 51. Concerns have been raised that the development would enable the further growth of Wilstead. However, a ny hypothetical future planning applications would necessarily be considered by the Council against the requirements of the development plan and other relevant considerations at the time. This appeal decision does not and cannot predetermine the outcome of those applications. Benefits of the proposal Contribution to housing supply 52. The Council concedes that it is currently only able to demonstrate 3.35 years of housing land supply (HLS), which is a significant shortfall against the five - year requirement of the Framework. Given that the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 has been withdrawn, there is no emerging plan at a sufficiently advanced stage to provide certainty that the HLS position is likely to recover in the near future. 53. I heard that, if the appeal is allowed, development would commence in July 2027 and that 126 homes would be constructed within the next five years ; and there is no evidence before me to indicate that this trajectory would not be deliverable . The proposal would, therefore, make a meaningful contribution to addressing the housing shortfall and it would also contribute to longer term housing needs. The Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes, and, i n the context of the HLS position, the deli very of housing carries significant positive weight. Affordable housing 54. The Council accepts that the delivery of affordable homes has fallen short of the requirement set out in the development plan. The proposal would provide 30% affordable housing, or 45 units, which would meet the requirement of Policy 58S of Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 the BBLP . Given there is a n undersupply of affordable housing in the Borough and therefore a pressing need for additional affordable homes, this benefit carries significant weight . Biodiversity net gain s 55. There is a statutory requirement for biodiversity net gains of at least 10%, which would be provided through a mix of on - site and off - site measures. The enhancement in biodiversity weighs in favour of the scheme . However, the actual gains in this case would not be significant given the enhancements would be proportionate to the base - line biodiversity value of the site. For this reason, I ascribe moderate weight to this benefit. Public open space 56. P ublic open space would be required to address the needs of future occupants of the scheme. However, it would also be within walking distance of existing communit ies who would have access to , and would benefit from , the proposed open space provisions. The parties agree that the delivery of open space is a benefit of the scheme and, in my judgement, it carries moderate positive weight. Economic benefits 57. The re would be economic benefits associated with the construction phase, including through employment and the local construction supply chain. In the longer term, future residents would increase spending and trade, which would help to support the vitality of rural communities and local services and facilities. The benefits in this case have not been quantified and would be commensurate to the scale of the development proposed. In this context, they carry moderate weight . Pedestrian and cycle links 58. Whilst the new pedestrian and cycle links would be required to provide safe access to the site for future occupiers , the links would also be of wider benefit to the existing community . T he proposed footpath along the north - eastern edge of Bedford Road , and the pedestrian crossing , would enhance accessibility, convenience, and safety for existing residents as well as future occupiers . In my judgement, this is a benefit that carries moderate weight. The Forest of Marston Vale 59. Extensive tree planting is proposed to accord with the requirements of Policy 36S of the BBLP, which expect s 30% tree cover to support the creation of the Forest of Marston Vale. The appellant indicates that the proposal would exceed the policy requirement . H owever , landscaping is a reserved matter , an d the extent of the tree cover i s not certain at this stage . Nonetheless, the minimum tree cover could be secured through a condition; and I have no reason to find that the site could not accommodate the planting proposed. Given the uncertainty as to the extent of the additional tree cover at this stage, the benefit carries limited weight. Planning Obligation 60. I have considered the obligations within the S106 Agreement against the tests set out in the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (the CIL Regulations) and the Framework , noting that the parties agree that the obligations comply with the Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 tests . The tests require that obligations are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development , and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. 61. The S 106 Agreement provides for the submission of an affordable housing scheme , which is necessary to ensure compliance with Policy 58S of the BB LP. The obligation to secure the delivery of a ccessible and wheelchair user dwellings is a requirement of Policy 59S of the BB LP and, therefore, is necessa ry and related to the development. 62. Obligations relating to the provision, management and maintenance of open space would be necessary to meet the needs of future occupiers in accordance with the requirements of Policy AD28 of the ADLP . The S 106 also secures the delivery of the off - site highway works that are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and to facilitate and promote the use of sustainable travel modes in accordance with Policies 31 , 53 , and 86s of the BBLP . 63. Further obligations provide for financial contributions towards healthcare facilities ; and education, including early years , secondary education, and special educational needs . The contributions have been calculated based on population projections and standardised costs , which were explained at the hearing. I am satisfied from what I have seen and heard that each of these financial contributions would be used for capital projects and for a local need arising from the development. 64. The S106 also includes provision for the management, monitoring and maintenance of sustainable urban drainage systems and biodiversity areas, which would be necessary to ensure these features would endure in the long term. 65. Overall, I find that each of the obligations in the S106 would meet the tests set out in the CIL Regulations and the Framework ; and I have taken them into account in reaching my decision on this appeal. The parties are satisfied that the S106 would be effective and enforceable, and I see no reason to form a different view. 66. The East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust requested financial contributions , noting that the additional population would increase pressure on the Kempston Ambulance Hub (the hub) . The contributions sought would help to fund the costs associated with the relocation, expansion, and installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure at the hub . I acknowledge that capital funding for the ambulance service does not increase when new homes are built. However, it is not clear how the financial contribution sought has been calculated and how it would directly relate to the development. T herefore, I cannot be satisfied that the contribution would meet the tests in the CIL Regulations . For this reason, the absence of this contribution does not weigh against t he proposal. Heritage and Planning Balance Heritage balance 67. The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of Dove Cottage, Duck End Farm House , and Duck End Barn through development within their setting s. The parties agree that the extent of the harm caused to each of the listed buildings would be minor; and in my judgement it would be at the low end of the range within the category of less than substantial harm . Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 68. The harm to each of the listed buildings is of considerable weight and importance , and I also ascribe great weight to the conservation of these designated heritage assets. However, in my judgement and having regard to my duties under the Act, I find that the public benefits I have identified in this case , particularly relating to the delivery of market and affordable housing where there is a significant shortfall , would be sufficient to outweigh the cumulative harm that would be caused to the significance of the listed buildings. On this basis, the harm to the heritage assets carries the clear and convincing justification required by the Framework and there would be no conflict with Policy 41S of the BBLP . Planning balance 69. T he conflict with Policy AD42 of the ADLP and Policy 7S of the BBLP brings the proposal into conflict with the development plan. However, because of the HLS position , paragraph 11 d) of the Framework , and the similar provisions in Policy AD1 of the ADLP , are engaged 70. Having found that the harm to the significance of the heritage assets would be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal, there are no circumstances before me to indicate that the re would be a strong reason for refusing the development proposed under the provision s of either Paragraph 11 d) i. of the Framework or Policy AD1 ii. of the ADLP . Therefore , the proposal falls to be considered under the test set out in Paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework and Policy AD1 i. of the ADLP 71. A dverse effects would arise through the physical and visual diminishment of the Local Gap between Wilstead and Wixhams, the harmful change in the character of the Local Gap, and the harm that would be caused to the character, setting , and identi t y of Wilstead. Whilst the Framework does not include specific provisions relating t o settlement gaps , it nonetheless expects proposals to improve the environment, to be sympathetic to local character and history , and to maintain a strong sense of place . These provisions reflect some of the ob jectives of Policy AD42 and, therefore, the policy remains a pertinent consideration in my decision. 72. Harm would also arise through the conflict with Policy 7S of the BBLP due to the site’s location outside of the settlement boundary of Wilstead , in the countryside. However, the Framework does not preclude development outside of defined settlement boundaries , and the site would be well located to provide good accessibility to services and facilities by sustainable travel modes . The proposal would, therefore, accord with the Framework’s expectations in respect of directing development to sustainable locations. Moreover, I have found that the harm to the character of the area would be localised; and therefore, in my judgement, the proposal would accord with the Framework’s expectatio n that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside should be recognised, and it would not run counter to the findings of the Courts 9 in this respect. 73. The significant shortfall in the HLS indicates that sites for housing will need to come forward beyond those identified as preferred locations in the development plan . Taking account of this and the specific context of the site and the surroundings, I ascribe limited weight to the conflict with Policy 7S of the BBLP. 9 Including Alwyn De Souza v SSLCG and others [2015] EWHC 2245 (Admin) Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 74. A dverse effects would also arise in respect of the listed buildings, although I have found that the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh th e heritage harm . 75. Set against these harms would be the benefits of the scheme, including the provision of market and affordable housing, each of which carry significant positive weight. I have also ascribed positive weight to the delivery of biodiversity net gains, public open space, tree planting in the Forest of Marston Vale, and improved footpath and cycle links. The economic benefits arising in the construction phase and in the longer term also weigh in favour of the scheme. 76. The parties agreed at the hearing that the carrying out of the planning balancing exercise is ultimately a matter for the decision maker , although I have had regard to the judgements made in the other appeal decisions to which I have been referred, including the decision at Fareham 10 . 77. I n the specific circumstances of this case, it is my judgement that the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole and having particular regard to the key policies referred to in Paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework. The proposal therefore benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Framework and in Policy AD1 of the AD LP. Conditions 78. I have considered the suggested conditions agreed between the parties against the tests for conditions set out in the Framework. Where necessary, I have amended the wording of the conditions to ensure compliance with the tests or in the interests of brevity and consistency. 79. I have included a condition specifying the relevant plans (1) to provide certainty as well as the standard conditions relating to the submission of reserved matters (2) and time limits (3) . Condition 4 is necessary to ensure the timely delivery of the infrastructure required to support the dwellings. 80. Condition 5 is necessary in the interest of highway safety and to protect the living conditions of nearby residents during the construction period. Condition s 6 is required to safeguard heritage assets of archaeological interest. 81. Conditions 7, 8, 9, and 10 are necessary to safeguard human health and the natural environment, including biodiversity features and trees, during the construction process. 82. Condition 11 is required in the interest s of highway safety . Conditions 1 2 - 1 4 are imposed in order to ensure the protection of great crested newts. 83. Conditions 15, 16, 17, and 18 are necessary to ensure the effects of the proposal on local character , and the details of open space and play provision , can be properly considered as part of the reserved matters submissions. Similarly, conditions 19 - 22 are required to ensure that proper consideration can be given to pedestrian safety , the management of streets , and refuse storage and collection at the reserved matters stage. I have altered the trigger for these conditions because they relate to matters that will necessarily be determined as part of the reserved matters submission(s) for layout . 10 Appeal decision reference: APP/ A1720/W/22/3299739, dated 23 November 2022 Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 84. Condition 23 is required to ensure there would be adequate provision for surface water drainage and to avoid the risk of flooding. Conditions 2 4 and 2 5 are imposed to ensure there would be an adequate standard of accommodation for future occupiers of the dwellings . 85. Condition 2 6 is necessary in the interests of highway safety and to protect the character and identity of Wilstead . However, I am not convinced it is necessary for the gateway feature to be finalised at an early stage of the construction process , and I have therefore adjusted the suggested trigger for this condition . 86. Condition 2 7 is required to ensure that sustainable travel modes are encouraged and prioritised. Condition 2 8 is necessary to ensure adequate provision of fire hydrants in the interests of fire safety. Finally, condition 2 9 is imposed to safeguard protected species, local character, and the living conditions of residents. 87. Further suggested conditions relating to external materials, and the timing of the delivery of hard - surfacing and vehicular turning places are detailed matters that relate to the reserved matters. It is not necessary for these to be covered by conditions on this outline planning permission. 88. Due to the provisions of Schedule 7 of the Town and Country Planning Ac t 1990, and as none of the statutory exemptions apply in this case, the development may not be begun unless a biodiversity gain plan (BGP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Because the biodiversity gain objective has a separate statutory basis as a planning condition, it is not necessary for me to include it within the schedule of conditions on this decision . Furthermore, t he Council may only approve the BGP if it is satisfied that the biodiversity gain objective is met , and there is no reason before me to suggest that the Council could not, if necessary, secure the implementation of the measures in the BGP when approving the plan. Conclusion 89. Overall, and notwithstanding the provisions of Policy AD1 of the ADLP, it is my assessment that the conflict with Policy AD42 of the ADLP and Policy 7S of the BBLP brings the proposal into conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. However, i n this case, the material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons give above, the appeal should be allowed. E Catcheside INSPECTOR SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan 24 - 953 - 03C and Proposed Access Junction Layout ADC2364 - DR - 003 P06 . Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 2) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development takes place . The reserved matters details shall accord with the Parameter Plan 24 - 953 - 03D . T he development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 3) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. The development shall begin not later than two years from the date of the approval of the last reserved matter to be approved . 4) Should the site be developed in phases, a S ite W ide P hasing P lan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the approval of the first reserved matters application . The Site Wide Phasing Plan shall define the phases of the development and the sequence in which the following elements will be provided , as relevant : (i) Development parcels; (ii) Infrastructure including all accesses, primary roads and routes within the site, primary footpaths and cycleways, including timing of provision and opening of access points into the site, and the off - site works; (iii) Surface water drainage features, SuDS and the foul water drainage network; (iv) Formal and informal public open space, including the provision for children’s play; (v) Strategic landscaping on the boundaries of the site ; (vi) St r ategic electricity, telecommunications and potable water mains provision . The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved Site Wide Phasing Plan . 5) For each phase of the development, n o development shall take place (including site clearance) , until a C onstruction M anagement P lan for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Construction Management Plan shall include the following details: (i) The parking of vehicles; (ii) Loading and unloading of plant and materials used in the development; (iii) Storage of plant and materials used in the development; (iv) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding/scaffolding affect ing the highway (if required) (v) Measure s to control the deposition of dirt/mud on surrounding roads during the development ; (vi) Footpath/footway/cycleway and road closures and traffic diversions needed during the construction period ; (vii) Traffic management needed at the interface with the public highway during the development period; (viii) Times, routes (to include specific measures such as delivery ticket instructions and location of signage) and means of access and egress for Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 construction traffic and delivery vehicles (including the import of materials and the removal of waste from the site) . The construction of the development within each phase shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan. 6) For each phase of the development, n o development shall take place until an archaeological strategy for evaluation and, if necessary, a further mitigation strategy for that phase based on the outcome of the evaluation, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The archaeological mitigation strategy shall include a timetable for works and the following components : (i) Fieldwork and/or preservation “in situ” of archaeological remains; (ii) A post - ex cavation assessment report (to be submitted within six months of the completion of fieldwork) (iii) A post - excavation analysis report , preparation of site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the local planning authority, completion of an archive report , and submission of a publication report (to be completed within two years of the completion of fieldwork). The archaeological mitigation strategy shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable. 7) For each phase of the development, n o development shall take place until a Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment Report for that phase, containing a Conceptual Site Model that indicates sources, pathways and receptors , has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The report shall identify the current and past land uses of the site and adjacent sites , with a view to determining the presence of contamination likely to be harmful to human health and the built and natural environment. If the Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment Report identifies a reasonable likelihood of harmful contamination, then no development within that phase shall be commenced until an Intrusive Site Investigation Risk Assessment Report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Site Investigation Risk Assessment Report shall identify the location and concentration of all pollutants on the site, the presence of receptors , and the results and recommendations from an appropriate risk assessment methodology . No development shall take place on any part of the site where the risk assessment identifies an unacceptable risk arising from contamination until (a) remediation works have been carried out in accordance with a Remediation Method Statement that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority ; and (b) a Remediation Verification Report , confirm ing that the site is suitable for use , has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any contamination that is found during the construction of the development that was not previously identified shall be reported to the local planning authority as Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 soon as practically possible . Development on the part of the site affected shall be suspended and a risk assessment shall be carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found , remediation and verification s c hemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These approved schemes shall be carried out before the development is resumed or continued. 8) Prior to the commencement of the development, a Construction Ecological Environmental Management Plan (CeEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CeEMP shall include the following details: (i) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities; (ii) Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”; (iii) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements) (iv) The location and timings of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features; (v) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works; (vi) Responsible persons and lines of communication; (vii) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works or similarly competent person; (viii) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers, and warning signs if applicable. The approved CeEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details. 9) Prior to the commencement of the development, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The contents of the LEMP shall include: (i) Description and evaluation of features to be managed; (ii) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management; (iii) Aims and objectives of management; (iv) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives; (v) Prescriptions of management actions; (vi) Prescription of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a thirty - year period); (vii) Details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of the plan; (viii) Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures. These shall include details of how the long - term implementation of the plan will be monitored and delivered and shall identify how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed, and implemented in order to ensure the delivery of the biodiversity objectives of the scheme. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 The LEMP shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 10) No development shall take place until an Arboricultural Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The method statement shall detail all tree protection measures and set out working methods which are to be implemented across each phase. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 11) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, no development shall take place until details of the junction of the vehicular access with Bedford Road, including a timetable for the construction of the associated works and measures to prevent sur face water from entering the highway, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The junction shall be constructed to base course level, in accordance with the approved details, prior to the development commencing. No d welling shall be occupied until the junction has been completed in full accordance with the approved details, including the provision of the surface course. 12) No development shall take place except in complete accordance with the terms and conditions of the Council’s Organisational License (WML - OR152, or a ‘Further License’) and with the proposals detailed on plan “Land on the East of Duck End Lane: Impact plan for great crested new t District Licensing (Version 1), dated 6 October 2025. 13) No development shall take place unless and until a certificate from the Delivery Partner (as set out in the District License VML - OR152, or a ‘Further License’), confirming that all necessary measures regarding great crested newt compensation have been appr opriately dealt with, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the authority has provided authorisation for the development to proceed under the district newt licence. 14) No development shall take place except in accordance with Part 1 of the Great Crested Newt Mitigation Principles, as set out in the District License (WML - OR152, or a ‘Further License’) and in compliance with the following: • Works to existing ponds onsite may only be undertaken during the autumn/winter, unless otherwise in accordance with Great Crested Newt Mitigation Principles. • Works which will affect likely newt hibernacula may only be undertaken during the active period for amphibians. • Capture methods must be used at suitable habitat features prior to the commencement of the development, which may include the use of temporary amphibian fencing, to prevent new t s moving onto the development site from adjacent suitable habitat, installed for the period of the construction of the development and removed upon completion of the development. • Amphibian fencing and pitfall trapping must be undertaken at suitable habitats and features, prior to the commencement of the development. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 15) The reserved matters submission for landscaping shall include the following details: (i) A survey of existing trees, shrubs and hedges giving their species, location, height, spread and condition and indicating those which are to be retained and those which are to be removed. (ii) Planting proposals giving location, species, number, density and planting size. (iii) Details of how a minimum 30% tree cover, to accord with the policy requirements for the Forest of Marston Vale, shall be achieved on the site; (iv) The relationship of new planting to buildings, roads, footpaths, drains and the location of all underground and overground services; (v) Areas of grass turfing or seeding and other surface materials; (vi) Depth of topsoil to be provided where necessary and the measures to be taken to maintain the new planting; (vii) Details of all hard landscaping works, paving materials, street furniture, bollards and bins; (viii) Details of long - term management and maintenance proposals for the new planting (ix) A timetable for the implementation of the works including the provision of strategic landscaping and any phasing of provision at the site. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 16) The reserved matters submission s for layout and landscaping shall include a plan showing all associated open space areas and the following details: (i) The type of open space proposed and area in square metres, to accord with Appendix 6 of the Open Space Supplementary Planning Document; (ii) Access points for pedestrians and maintenance vehicles, and measures to prevent unauthorised vehicles from accessing the open space; (iii) Litter bin numbers and locations. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 17) The reserved matters submission for layout shall include a detailed plan of the equipped play area(s) and the following details: (i) Play equipment types, locations and material finish; (ii) Safety surfacing type and colour; (iii) Details of fencing, gates, benches and litter bins; (iv) Distance from dwellings (minimum 20m); (v) Details of access paths including material finish. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 18) The reserved matters submission s for scale and layout shall include detailed drawings to show the existing and proposed ground levels and the finished floor levels for the development. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 20 19) The reserved matters submission for layout shall include details of the location, type and colour of surfacing materials of carriageways, shared surfaces, ramps, raised tables, footways, footway - cycleways, paths in public open spaces, access paths to cycle parking and houses, individual and shared private driveways, public/visitor parking, and measures to prevent surface water from draining onto proposed highways. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the details approved. 20) The reserved matters submission for layout shall include details of the arrangements for the future management and maintenance of streets and footpaths/cycle paths. The streets and footpaths/cycle paths shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accorda nce with the approved details until such time as an agreement has been entered into under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or a private management and maintenance company has been established. 21) The reserved matters submission for layout shall include details of bin storage and collection points . The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the details approved. 22) The reserved matters submission for layout shall include details of triangular pedestrian visibility splays, measuring 1.8 metres x 1.8 metres adjacent to the rear edge of any footway on each side of any driveway and/or vehicular access that crosses a footway. The splays shall be provided before the access to which the splays relate is brought into use and the splays shall be kept free of any obstruction over the height of 0.6 metres above ground level. 23) The reserved matters submission for layout shall include a surface water drainage scheme , which demonstrate s that there will be storage for a 1 in 100 - year rainfall event plus 40% climate change with a 10% allowance for Urban Creep , and that a ny discharge rate from the development will be at Greenfield runoff rate or below. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the details approved. 24) The reserved matters submission for layout and appearance shall include details of measures to be taken to ensure that all habitable rooms that, without mitigation, would be exposed to external road noise in excess of 55dBA Leq 16 hour (free field) during the day (0700 hours to 2300 hours) or 45dBA Leq 8 hour (free field) during the night (2300 hours to 0700 hours) shall achieve an internal noise level of 35 dBA Leq 16 hour during the day and 30 dBA Leq 8 hour during the night and shall be effectively venti lated without opening windows. No dwelling that falls within the scope of this condition shall be occupied until the approved measures for that dwelling have been provided and the measures shall thereafter be retained. 25) The reserved matters submission s for layout and appearance shall include details of measures to be taken to ensure that the maximum daytime noise level in private outdoor amenity areas shall not exceed 50dBA Leq 16 hour (free field). No dwelling shall be occupied until the approved measu res for that dwelling have been provided and the measures shall thereafter be retained. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 21 26) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, no dwelling shall be occupied until details of a gateway feature , including signage to show the speed limit and village name , has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The gateway feature shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the approved details before any dwelling is first occup ied . 27) No dwelling shall be first occupied until a detailed travel plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The travel plan shall include: (i) A baseline survey of the site occupants (if known) or a timetable to undertake a baseline survey of occupants (within 6 months of first occupation) to establish current/proposed travel patterns; (ii) Details of existing and proposed transport provision and facilities, to include links to pedestrian, cycl e and public transport networks and conformity with the local planning authority’s car and cycle parking standards; (iii) Proposals and measures to minimise private car use and facilitate walking, cycling and public transport; (iv) Details Travel Plan targets with relevant target dates; (v) A details Action Plan to include specific timetabled measures designed to promote travel choice; (vi) Proposed plans/methods to monitor and undertake annual reviews of the Travel Plan and its targets for a period of 5 years, including details for submitting the review to the local planning authority for approval ; (vii) Details of site - specific marketing and publicity information to be provided to all occupiers of the development to include: s ite specific travel and transport information , i ncentives to encourage sustainable modes of travel , d etails of relevant pedestrian, cycle and public transport routes to/from and within the site , m aps showing the location of shops and other facilities , and c opies of relevant bus and rail timetables (viii) The appointment of a co - ordinator who will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the Action Plan and the annual reviews. The Travel Plan shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 28) No dwelling shall be first occupied until a scheme for the provision of fire hydrants, including a timetable for the delivery of the fire hydrants, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The fire hydrants shall there after be delivered in accordance with the approved scheme. 29) No external lighting shall be installed on the site except in accordance with an external lighting scheme that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. End of Schedule Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 22 APPEARANCES F OR THE APPELLANT : Christopher Katkowski CBE KC, Kings Chambers Michael Robson BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI, Cerda Planning James Morton BA (Hons) MA CMLI, Aspect Landscape Planning Chris May LLB LARTPI, Freeths FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY : Phillip E Hughes BA (Hons) MRTPI FRGS FRSA Dip Man MCMI (Planning Matters) Paul Reynolds CMLI FRSA (Landscape) Alistair Wren MRTPI, Bedford Borough Council Penelope Jewitt, Bedford Borough Council INTERESTED PARTIES : Mark Brooks, Wilstead Parish Council Lizzie Barnicoat, Wilstead Parish Council DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED A FTER THE HEARING: 1. Completed S106 Agreement , dated 14 May 2026 . 2. Revised s chedule of conditions⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Conclusion 89. Overall, and notwithstanding the provisions of Policy AD1 of the ADLP, it is my assessment that the conflict with Policy AD42 of the ADLP and Policy 7S of the BBLP brings the proposal into conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. However, i n this case, the material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons give above, the appeal should be allowed. E Catcheside
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3375485 (Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council) — 2026-05-26
📍 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council LPA code: E07000084 PINS reference: 3375485 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Inquiry Held on 3 - 6 & 10 - 1 2 March 2026 Site visit s made on 4 & 9 March 2026 by G D Jones BSc(Hons) DipTP DMS MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 th May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 Land north of Whitchurch Station, West of Newbury Road • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Genko Holdings Ltd against the decision of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. • The application Ref 23/03157/FUL , dated 20 December 2023 , was refused by notice dated 1 August 2025 . • The development proposed is described as construction of a surface car park; landscape buffer planting and screening; SUDS; erection of single cafe unit (class E); fast - charging EV points; cycle parking facilities; creation of vehicular access pedestrian footpath to station platform . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a surface car park , landscape buffer planting and screening , S u DS , erection of single cafe unit (class E) , fast - charging EV points , cycle parking facilities , vehicular access and pedestrian footpath to station platform at Land north of Whitchurch Station, West of Newbury Road in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/03157/FUL , dated 20 December 2023 , subject to the conditions contained within the Schedule at the end of this decision . Applications for Costs 2. Applications for costs were made by: • Genko Holdings Ltd against Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council ; and • Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council against Genko Holdings Ltd . 3. These costs applications shall be the subject of a separate Decision letter to follow. Although the appellant made no further application, it also inv ited me to make an award of costs against Whitchurch Town Council and Whitchurch Action Group (WTCAG) on my own initiative . I shall also deal with thi s matter in th e Costs Decision letter to follow. Preliminary Matters 4. T he appellant has requested that the appeal be assessed and determined based on proposal drawings that differ from those that were before the Council when it determined the appeal planning app lication. The Council raised no ob jections to Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 this approach and made its case on the basis of the revised details . The changes relate to repositioning of car parking spaces by less than 1m ; l andscaping alterations, including additional planting; variations to the surrounding context ; a modification to the site access to allow a bus to exit in an emergency ; and detail of the drainage and lighting scheme s. 5. In my view, the amendments are, at the most, minor and would not result in a ny substantial difference or fundamental change to the application as determined. Moreover, due to their minor nature, nor would the re be any procedural unfairness caused to anyone involved in the appeal were it to be det ermined on the basis of the revised details. I have, therefore, assessed and determined th e appeal based on the revisions requested by the appellant. 6. A legal agreement, dated 23 March 20 26 , made under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Legal Agreement) was completed shortly after the Inquiry closed. I have had regard to it when consider ing and determin ing the appeal . Main Issue s 7. The main issue s are: • Whether the proposed development would accord with Policy SS11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 - 2029; • Whether it amounts to major development in the terms of paragraph 190 of the National Planning Policy Framework; • The proposed development’s effect on trees, including those subject to Tree Preservation Order; • Its overall effect on the North Wessex Downs National Landscape; and • Whether any harm that might result from the development would be outweighed by other considerations. Reasons Local Plan Policy SS11 8. Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011 to 2029) , M ay 2016 , (the Local Plan) allocates a 1ha site, on land to the north of the railway line at Whitchurch , for development of a new passenger railway station car park . Local Plan Policy SS11 says , amongst other thing s , that proposals for a new rail station car park at this site will be permitted subject to three criteria being met . 9. The appeal site broadly contains the 1ha Policy SS11 site (the alloca ted site) but also includes additional land , particularly to the south linking to the northern platform of Whitchurch Station (the Station) . Landscaping is also proposed beyond the boundaries of both the appeal site and the allocated site , par ticularly to the north and west. The proposed car park , which is intended for use by rail passengers, would , nonetheless, be contained within the allocated site. In that respect, the proposals accord with Policy SS11. 10. The first criteri on of Policy SS11 is that vehicle access to the site can be secured from Newbury Road. Part of the allocated site extends to Newbury Road. It is in this location that t he vehicular access to the car park is proposed. The access would necessitate the removal of tree s , which is a matter considered as part of the Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 third main issue below under the sub - heading Trees . Nonetheless, there is no substantiated evidence that the proposed access cannot be safely created and operated . Moreover, t he local highway authority has not objected to the propose d access . Furthermore, the Council has confirmed that it no longer sustain s its objections in respect to this first criterion. 11. The second criterion is that access between the railway station and car park site can be secured. The allocated site does not have a contiguous boundary with the Station . Consequently , other than using a rather indirect route via the existing highway network , part of which does not have a footway, compliance with this aspect of the Policy would require a link between the car park and the Station across the intervening land , beyond the allocated site . Th is is what is proposed . 12. This access link would be accommodated within that part of the appeal site that extend s to the south of the allocated site . Notwith standing some of the submissions made, there is no substantiated evidence that this proposed access cannot be delivered. Indeed it seems most likely that it can be. As with the first criterion of Policy SS1, the Council has confirmed it no longer sustain s its objections in respect to th e second criterion . 13. The third and final criterion of the Policy is that the site is comprehensively landscaped given its location within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty , now know n as the North Wessex Downs National Landscape (the National Landscape) . The o n - site planting proposed would be supplemented by off - site planting , particularly to the north and west of the allocated site. Collectively and subject to controls that could be secured via planning conditions , the proposed planting would be substantial . Accordingly, the site would be comprehensively landscaped albeit that much of the plant ing would lie beyond the allocated site and the appeal site . The effect of this aspect of the scheme along with any wider effects is considered as part of the fourth main issue below under the sub - heading N orth Wessex Downs National Landscape . 14. Other aspects of the proposals have been criti ci sed as being at odds with Policy SS11 , particularly in terms of going beyond what was envisaged when the Local Plan was adopted . These include the amount of car parking space s and hardstanding pr oposed, the consequential effect on land available on - site for landscaping, as well as in respect to proposed lighting and sustainable drainage systems (the SuDS) . 15. I recognise that if less parking and hardstanding were to be proposed, there would be more space available on - site for landscaping. Nonetheless, Policy SS11 does not place a n upper limit on the number of parking spaces that may be provided nor on the extent of hardstanding. Consequently, there is no co nflict with the Policy as a matter of principle in these respects. 16. While not expressly provided for i n the Policy, the proposed lighting and SuDS would be ancillary to the car park . Lighting and drain age infrastructure are reasonabl y standard features that one would expect to form part of a car park intended to support a railway station. The sa me is true of the proposed electric vehicle charging points and cycle parking facilities, which also do not expressly feature in the Policy. Accordingly, as a matter of principle, none of these considerations are in conflict with Policy SS11. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 17. The proposed café unit contrasts somewhat with the foregoing aspects of the appeal scheme as this kind of facility is less clearly associated with a station car park use . Nonetheless, it would support th e proposed dev e lopment , in terms of providing a service to users of the car park and Station and is described by the appellant as having been brought about by the need to support EV charging . While such a café is not expressly included within the Policy SS11 allocation, n or is it precluded . 18. Overall, therefore, the appeal scheme would not conflict with Policy SS11 of the Local Plan. Nonetheless, i t does not necessarily follow from this that the development would not cause any harm or conflict with other planning policy . These matter s are conside red below. Framework Paragraph 190 19. Paragraph 190 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that when considering applications for development within National Landscapes, permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances and w here it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. The associated footnote 67 sets out that whether a proposal is ‘major development’ for the purposes of paragraph 190 is a matter for the decision maker, taking into account its na ture, scale and setting, and whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated or defined . 20. The planning witnesses for the Council and for WTCAG respectively indicated that a scheme th at complies with Local Plan Policy SS11 would not amount to major development in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . I have found no good reason to disagree with them in this regard. While these witnesses came to a different conclusion to me in respect to compliance with Policy SS11, as set out above I have found that the appeal scheme would accord with this Policy. On this basis , the appeal scheme would not a m ount to ma jor development in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . 21. The appeal site is some 1.18ha in area. While landscaping is proposed beyond its boundary , it would be predominantly in the form of planting rather than development . T he additional land within the appeal site that extends beyond the 1ha allocated site is chiefly to accommodate the proposed link to the Station . As set out above , such a link is a requirement of Policy SS11 yet not something that can be delivered wit hout rely ing on land beyond the allocated site . 22. Although the significant majority of the appeal site would be developed and lit , the totality of the proposed development is of a reasonably small scale , including only one building which would be of modest proportions . Nor would it have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which th e National Landscape has been designated or defined . 23. For these reasons , irresp ective of my conclusion regarding compliance with Policy SS11, t he appeal scheme does not come close to meeting the description of ‘major development’ for the purposes of paragraph 190 of the Framework . Nor does it conflict with this paragraph 190 . In making this assessment I have taken into account the submissions regarding EIA screening. Nonetheless, the tests associated with paragraph 190 and EIA screening are entirely separate , with different purposes, and one should not be used to inform the other . Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 Trees 24. The creation of the proposed vehicular access would result in the loss of three trees l ocated adjacent to Newbury Road. These trees are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order made subsequent to the adoption of the Local Plan . The extent of the allocated site ’s frontage to Newbury Road places a constraint on where a vehicular access, as required by Policy SS11 , could be located . It is here that the proposed access would be located. T he Arboricultural Sta te ment of Common Ground (SoCG) between the Council and the appellant says this is the only place the access can go. Any other, more arboriculturally suitable location is not possible for other highways or landscape reasons . 25. It is implicit , therefore, that the Policy SS11 allocation anticipated the loss of these trees a s well as any effects on other trees to be retained in order to create th e vehicular access required by the Policy . Accordingly , the proposed development would bring about no greater harm through its impact on these trees th an the Local Plan Policy SS11 allocation. Moreover, the Arboricultural SoCG also concludes that the amenity value of the trees to be removed can be compensated by replacement planting , which could be secured via planning conditions. 26. For these reasons, therefore, t he proposed development would not have a significant effect on trees, including those that are subject to the Tree Preservation Order . Accordingly, in this regard , the appeal scheme would comply with Policy EM1 (Landscape) of the Local Plan and Policy LD3 ( Protection of Hedgerows, Trees and Tree Planting ) of the Whitchurch Neighbourhood Development Plan 2014 to 2029, July 2017 (the Neighbourhood Plan) , as well as with p aragraph 187 of the Framework . North Wessex Downs National Landscape 27. When assessing the proposed development’s effect on the National Landscape , I have taken into account that, via Policy SS11, the Local Plan anticipates a new passenger railway station car park at the 1ha allocated site and that that site is contained broadly within the appeal site. 28. Implicit within the Policy SS11 allocation is that a new passenger railway station car park would be acceptable at the allocated site in terms of its effect on the National Landscape subject to the site being comprehensively landscaped . If all of the landscaping were to be contained within the allocated site , it would have a n influence on the amount of space that would be available for the car park and associated development, including drainage infra structure and lighting , particularly around the edges of the allocated site . L imiting the quantum of development and i nc reas ing the amount of landscaping on - site in this manner might be said to be positive in terms of the effect on the National Landscape . 29. However, a more rounded appra isal of the appeal scheme indicates that it would have an acceptable effect on the National Landscape , broadly in line with the appellant’s landscape witness’s assessment . Fundamental to this is how the proposed off - site planting would be seen and experienced in the host landscape . 30. The proposed landscaping scheme relies on some 1ha of land that lies beyond the appeal site. While this approach may not be ideal , provided that the mitigation , be it on or off - site , would be secured , it would be acceptable in principle. The some 20m - deep belt of tree planting proposed to the north of the appeal site would be Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 very much in keeping with the local landscape character . Notable existing examples are found nearby, to the west along the former railway corridor and to the south along the existing railway corridor. Co mparable long and deep tree belts are also present in the wider landscape, particularly to the northwest . Moreover , native woodland is a key characteristic of the National Landscape and a benefit of the scheme . 31. Although the proposed tree belt would foreshorten the host field, any Policy SS11 compliant scheme would have a foreshortening effect . To the north of the tree belt , the scale and proportions of the field that would remain would be in keeping with the wider landscape. An important aspect of the effectiveness of th e proposed tree belt as a characteristic landscape feature is that it would extend the full width of the field . This c ould not be achieved were planting to be constrained to the allocated site. 32. Indeed, l imiting the landscaping to within the allocat ed site would be likely to be less in keeping with the local landscape than what is proposed. There are two principal reasons for this . First, while it would provide a greater sense of openness, planting constrained to a corner of a large field is less characteristic of the area’s landscape than the proposed tree belt . Se cond, the boundary of the allocated site has a series of rather awkward angles and corners that are even less ch aracteristic of the local landscape . 33. Part of the landscaping scheme includes meadow, which is not characteristic of the wider landscape . Nonetheless, it is characteristic of the edge of Whitchurch where there are areas of grassland and scrub such that it would not be out of keeping here or harmful to the National Landscape. 34. The appeal site is reasonably prominent in terms of being fairly elevate d and standing on the edge of the settlement with a frontage to Newbury Road. Nonetheless, its prominence and any sense of this area acting as a gateway to the National Landscape would have been known when Policy SS11 was adopted as part of the Local Plan. 35. Moreover, due in large part to the proposed planting, v isual effects of the development would be localised and diminish over time as the planting matures . By ‘ year 15 ’ , the proposed development w ould be screened from views to the north . It also seems likely that there would be some betterment in terms of providing additional screening of existing lighting within the settlement , including that associated with the Station. 36. Views of the development from the west would be more open , particularly while the proposed planting established. The Landscape and Visual Appraisal ’s assessment that after Year 15 the adverse visual effects on receptors using the rights of way to the west would be no more than moderate appears reasonable . Since th is Appraisal was produced the scheme has evolved and now includes more sympathetic mitigation . Consequently, the se visual effects are likel y to have reduced , at least a little. Nonetheless, the adverse effects in this respect would result in conflict with Policy EM1 of the Local Plan. 37. The car park would be apparent from Newbury Road, particularly due to the vehicular access , both in terms of heralding its presence and affording views in to the site that are currently screen ed or filtered by boundary planting, including the three trees that are proposed to be removed. Nonetheless, given that Policy SS11 Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 requires a vehicular access to Newbury Road , the landscape and visual effects of the development along this frontage would be likely to be similar for any Policy SS11 compliant scheme. 38. Limiting the landscaping associated with a Policy SS11 car park development to within the allocated site would also have implications in respect to visual effects . This is because there is very little scope to position the vehicular access other than near to the northern boundary . Consequently, there would be limited opportunity to sympathetically screen the development along part of the northern boundary . The proposed scheme represents a significant improvement by comparison. 39. Due principally to the screening effect of the proposed planting , the proposed drainage scheme would not have a significant influence on the character and appearance of the area beyond that of the wider proposed development . For similar reasons , combined with its small scale and simple design, the same would be true of the proposed café building. 40. The Council ’s case is that the appeal scheme would breach the statutory duty in s85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (the Sta tutory Duty) to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the National Landscape. Its planning witness accepted , nonetheless, that a proposal in accordance with Policy SS11 would be compatible with the S tatutory D uty . Again, I have f ound no good reason to disagree with her in this regard. 41. In summary , while there would be some adverse landscape and visual effects and associated conflict with Local Plan Policy EM1 resulting from the appeal scheme, these should be viewed in the context of the Local Plan Policy SS11 allocation . Any Policy SS11 compliant scheme would have some landscape and visual impacts . The appeal scheme accords with Policy SS11. Its landscape and visual effects would be localised and any harm would be no more than moderate in the longer term. There would be significant countervailing landscape and visual benefits , such that landscape and scenic beauty in the National Landscape would be conserv ed and enhanc ed . 42. Accordingly , the appeal scheme would have an acceptable effect on the National Landscape and would be compatible with the Statutory Duty. Moreover, for reasons outlined above, i t would not conflict with Polic y EM10 ( Delivering High Quality Development) of the Local Plan and Policy LD2 (Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape) of the Neighbourhood Plan , nor with paragraph 189 of the Framework, the North Wessex Downs Management Plan or the Council’s Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document , July 2018 . Further Considerations Other Matters 43. Notwithstanding some of the submissions, the evidence indicates that the purpose of the Evingar Road car pa r k was at least partly to relieve on - street parking rather than replace or provide an alternative to the planned Policy SS11 car park . Policy SS11 was adopted in light of the Evingar Road proposal . I also note that the Neighbourhood Plan expressly supports the Local Plan policy for the development of a station car park north of the railway station - the Policy SS11 allocated site . Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 44. T he appeal scheme has been criticised in terms of safety and accessibility to the Station . However, notwithstanding planned and funded improvements along the intervening route, the Evingar Road car park appears likely to perform worse or no better in these respects than the appeal schem e . This is largely due to its distance from the Station and the intervening topography and quality of lighting . Nor would it p rovide step - free access to the northern platfor m in contrast to the appeal scheme . I am mindful, though , that the appeal scheme would not resolve existing issue s asso ciated with moving directly betwee n the two platforms. 45. T here is no substantiated evidence that the proposed lighting would fail to create a safe, secure and attractive environment for users of the development. In addition to these factors, the lighting scheme must also respond to the site’s sensitive location within the National Landscape, together with relevant biodiversity considerations . These are matters that would apply to any Policy SS11 compl ia nt development . There is no compelling reason to conclude that the appeal scheme would not achieve an appropriate balance between these requirements or provide a safe , secure environment for its users . 46. Need for the appeal car park or any Policy SS11 compliant car park has also been challenged. Nonetheless, the evidence of the appellant’s highways witness indicates that there is need , current and future, for extra station car parking broadly consistent with the quantum proposed . Although cri tical of that evidence , the Council produced no evidence of its own on this matter . 47. While WTCAG did produce evidence regarding nee d, it is not as comprehensive or as compelling as that of the appellant , particular ly in terms of likely future need . For i nstance, while 6 4 % of its users may currently walk to the Station, it does not follow that there is no latent rail - user dema nd to access the Station , for example, from people who live beyond reasonable walk ing distance from it . Although aspects of the network constrain the number of services that can operate through the Station , this need not place a constraint on future demand . I was advised that, given the length of the platforms and consistent with past activity, rail passenger capacity could be increased via longer trains. 48. Network Rail supports the provision of the car park , which also suggests that there is a need for the proposed scheme . For these reasons and bearing in mind that the development plan plans for car park s at both the Policy SS11 allocated site and the Evingar Road site , there is good reason to believe that there is a need for the proposed car parking. 49. The evidence also refers to other appeal decisions. Those in other areas would have been the subject of different development plan policies compared to those before me. Moreover, I am not familiar with the full circumstances of any of those cases. While I am mindful of t he importance of consistency in appeal decision making, it is also important that each decision is made on its individual merits. So, although I have taken all of the other appeal decisions into account, I have assessed and determined th is appeal on the basis of the evidence before me in the relevant policy context. Having done so, none have altered the outcome of the appeal. Interested Parties 50. In addition to the main issue s and the other foregoing matters, concern has been expressed, including by those who spoke at the Inquiry , in respect to a number of Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 considerations . These include the proposals’ effect on rights of way; on archaeology; highway safety and congestion, including for pedestrians and access for emergency vehicles; on water quality; on biodiversity ; on safety and security; on mental health; on the rural economy ; on drainage and flood risk ; on existing infrastructure; on criminal activity and antisocial behavio ur ; on access and recreational use of the countryside; and on heritage assets . 51. The concerns raised also relate to whether th ere is a genuine n eed for all elem ents of the proposed development ; c ommunity engagement over the proposals; wider proposals for the area; l andscape - wide archaeology ; land ownership ; infrastructure to support the development ; alleged shortcomings in the assessment of the development, including the environmental impact assessment and in a wide range of other respects ; bus services /facilities ; accessibility by means other than the car , including between the car park and Statio n , and within the Station ; connectivity to the settlement; the lack of station improvements ; pollution , including noise , light, water, air and odour ; the EV charging points ; climate change; train passenger capacity; the appellant’s conduct and motives; whether the café could/should be located in the settlement; and ground conditions and contamination . 52. The objections also concern w hether there would be any p ublic benefits resulting and if so whether they are overstated ; changed circumstances since the Local Plan was adopted; overdevelopment of Whitchurch; sustainability; layout and design; co mpliance with the development plan, including the Neighbourhood Plan ; loss of farmland; compliance with Whitchurch Design Statement, the North Wessex Downs Management Plan and National Nature Network Framework ; parking for people with disabilities; liaison with Network Rail and use of its land; whether exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated; dark skies; the creation of a precedent for other development; the site’s location beyond the settlement boundary; signage; the scheme’s deliverability; procedural matter s ; the emerging Local Plan; the site’s history; consultation and publicity of the propo sals ; and viability of the café . 53. These matters are largely identified and considered within the Council officer’s report on the appeal scheme such that they were before the Council when the planning application was determined. They were also before it when it prepared its evidence and when it submitted its case at the Inquiry and are largely addressed in its evidence and in the various SoCG s . Other than as set out above, the Council did not conclude that they would amount to reasons to justify withholding planning permission. I have bee n provided with no substantiated evidence which would prompt me to disagree with the Council’s conclusions in these respects subject to the imposition of planning obligations and conditions as discussed below . Planning Obligations 54. In the event that planning permission were to be granted and implemented , the planning obligations within the Legal Agreement would secure: • A Landscape Management Plan , its implementation and its maintenance ; and • On and off - site b iodiversity measures , including a Biodiversity Gain Report , Biodiversity Gain Land, Biodiversity Metric and Habitat Management and Monitoring , and long - term management , as well as a payment to support monitoring. 55. The Council has submitted a detailed statement (the CIL Compliance Statement), which address es the application of statutory requirements t o the planning Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 obligations within the Legal Agreement and set s out the relevant planning policy support / justification. 56. I have considered the planning obligations of the Legal Agreement in light of Regulation 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) and government policy and guidance on the use of planning obligations. Having done so, I am satisfied that those obligations would be required by and accord wit h the policies set out in the CIL Compliance Statement. Overall, I am satisfied that all of those obligations are directly related to the proposed development, fairly and reasonably related to it and necessary to make it acceptable in planning terms . Conditions 57. A schedule of 24 suggested conditions agreed between the Council and the appellant has been submitted, which includes the standard time limit condition. I have considered these in the light of government guidance on the use of planning conditions and made a djustments accordingly . 58. In order to provide certainty, a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans would be necessar y . To protect highway safety and the living conditions of local residents and in the interests of biodiversity, conditions would be necessary to control matters during the construction phase, including dust and air quality, and compliance with a Construction Environmental Management Plan. 59. Conditions to safeguard against contamination that might affect the site, including unsuspected contamination, along with any requisite remediation, and to control soil and other material imported to the site , would be necessary to protect the health and well - being of future occupiers and on/ off - site receptors as well as in the interests of biodiversity . Also i n the interests of biodiversity, c ondition s would be necessary to mitigate the development’s effects on protected species and their habitat . 60. Further conditions woul d be necessary to ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined / recorded . To protect the character and appearance of the area and i n the interests of biodiversity, condition s would be necessary to protect retained trees and ensure the establishment of new tree plan t ing , to secure a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan , and to control levels , earthworks and lighting . 61. Conditions to secure the installation and management of sustainable drainage would be necessary in the interests of flood prevention, to provide appropriate and adequate facilities , and to protect the environment. To ensure safe, practical and inclusive pedestrian facilities are provided, to protect the character and appearance of the area and in the interests of biodiversity, a condition to secure the delivery of an accessible link between the site and the S tation’s northern platform would be necessary . 62. A condition would be necessary to secure and control cooking fume extraction measures associated with the café to protect the living conditions of nearby occupiers. To help ensure the efficient operation of the car park and that it serves users of the S tation appropriately , a condition would be necessary to secure a Car Park Management Plan along with its implementation . Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 63. To promote the use of sustainable modes of transport and to protect the character and appearance of the area , a condition to control the provision of on - site electric vehicle charging facilities would be necessary. To protect the living conditions of neighbours , a condition to control noise and vibration from equipment within the site would be necessary. To protect highway safety and manage traffic flow, a condition would be necessary to secure and retain the vehicular access point and associated visibility splays . Planning Balance 64. The appeal scheme accords with Local Plan Policy SS11 . It would not be ‘major development’ in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . 65. There would be some adverse effects leading to some conflict with Local Plan Policy EM1. These , though, should be understood in the context of the Policy SS11 allocation. Any Policy SS11 compliant scheme would have some landscape and visual impacts. The appeal scheme’s effects would be localised and any harm would be no more than moderate in the longer term. It would have no significant effect s on trees and accord with Framework paragraph 187 . 66. There would also be benefits in landscape and visual terms compared to the approach favoured by the Council resulting from the creation of a tree belt rather than rel ying purely on on - site landscaping . 67. Overall, the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the National Landscape and be compatible with the Statutory Duty . Moreover, for the reasons outlined above, the scheme would accord with the development plan viewed as a whole and comply with paragraph 189 of the Framework . 68. Although I have not done so , had I concluded that the appeal scheme were to represent ‘major development’ , in my view the public interest in such a scheme and exceptional circumstances were already proven when the site was allocated in the Local Plan . Furthermore, t here are significant public interest considerations associated with the delivery of the appeal scheme, which in the context of the Policy SS11 allocation and wider considerations outlined above, would amount to exceptional c ircumstances in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . 69. Again, although I have not done so , h ad I concluded that the proposed development were to be in conflict with Policy SS11, I would not have concluded that there would be a breach of the Statutory Duty bearing in mind that Policy SS11 allocates car park development on a 1ha site . As the appellant points out, it would be an overextension to claim that one form of disposition of typical car parking elements within the allocated site breaches the S tatutory D uty while another may not . 70. Moreover, the appeal scheme meets the S tatutory D uty in many ways, including by supporting the use of the rail netw ork as a s ustainable mode of transport, and via biodiversity improvement s and native tree planting . It would b ring substantial benefits . Nota ble amongst these are the support that the car park would bring to rail travel as a sustainable mode of transport, the biodiversity net gain and the native planting . There are also the landscape and visual benefits relative to the Council ’s favoured approach. Although the benefits of the scheme are not a s numerous and weighty as the appellant claim s , the y would comfortably outweigh Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 the residual harm that I have identified a nd the p olicy conflict alleged by the Council , including in respect to Policy SS11 . 71. For these reasons, ther efore, the appeal scheme is undoubtedly sustainable development in the terms of the Framework and should be granted planning permission. Conclusion 72. For all of the reasons given above and , subject to the identified conditions , the appeal should be allowed. G D Jones INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 APPEARANCES 1 FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Ruchi Parekh , Counsel Instructed by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Sh e called Frank Spooner BSc(Hons) RCArborA MArborA TechCert (ArborA) VETCert (Consulting) Operations Director & Senior Consultant , Simon Jones Associates Anne Priscott BA(Hons) C ML I Anne Priscott Associates Ltd Stephanie Baker BSc(Hons) M Sc MRTPI Associate , Bell Cornwell FOR THE APPELLANT: Sasha White 2 , King’s Counse l Instructed by Bidwells H e called Thomas Eckhardt Dipl Geol CGeol Technical Director & Hydrogeologist, WSP UK Peter Wharton BSc(Hons) FArborA MICFor Director, Wharton Natural Infrastructure Consultants Ian Dix BSc(Hons) MS c CMILT MCIHT Director, Transport Planning & Mobility SLR Consulting Limited Clare Brockhurst FLI BSc(Hons) Dip LA Director, Leyton Place Limited Christopher Pattison BA(Hons) BPI MRTPI Head of Planning, Bidwells LLP FOR WHITCHURCH TOWN COUNCIL AND WHITCHURCH ACTION GROUP : Jane Piper Instructed by Whitchurch Town Council & Whitchurch Action Group Sh e called David Williams BA(Hons) Dip(Hons) LA CMLI Principal, David Williams Landscape Consultancy Ltd Jane Piper BA(Hons) B TP MRTPI Director, Lucid Planning INTERESTED PERSONS: Jacqueline Browne Local Resident & Whitchurch Action Group David Gosling Local Resident & Whitchurch Action Group 1 Brian O'Donovan, Principal Planning Office r of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council , and Billy Palmer, Partner, Planning, Bidwells, contributed to the conditions / planning obligations session 2 Mr White was assisted by Poppy Kemp, Co unsel Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 DOCUMENT S submitted at the Inquiry ID1 - The Appellant ’s Opening ID2 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council ’s Opening ID3 - Whitchurch Town Council & Whitchurch Action Group ’s Opening ID4 - Jacqueline Brown e ’s script ID5 - David Gosling ’s script ID6 - Lead Local Flood Authority Comments dated 15 January 2026 ID7 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council ’s Closing Statement ID8 - Whitchurch Town Council & Whitchurch Action Group ’s Closing Statement ID9 - The Appellant ’s Closing Statement Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS FOR APPEAL REF APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 : 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • Site location plan Dwg 1277.01 - 001 Rev B • Existing site plan Dwg 1277.01 - 010 Rev F • Proposed site plan Dwg 1277.01 - 101 Rev I • Proposed café ground floor plan Dwg 1277.01 - 102 Rev A • Proposed café roof plan Dwg 1277.01 - 103 Rev A • Proposed café elevation Dwg 1277.01 - 200 Rev B • Site Access Arrangement Dwg ITB16002 - GA - 027 Rev C • Landscape Proposals Dwg CLPD 243 P01 • Station Car Park Existing Topography (Sheet 1 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0101 Rev P01 • Station Car Park Existing Topography (Sheet 2 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0102 Rev P01 • Station Car Park Proposed Drainage Strategy (Sheet 1 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0501 Rev P02 • Station Car Park Proposed Drainage Strategy (Sheet 2 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0502 Rev P02 • Station Car Park Drainage Catchment Plan (Sheet 1 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0510 Rev P01 • Station Car Park Drainage Catchment Plan (Sheet 2 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - X C - DR - 0511 Rev P01 • External Lighting Layout Dwg 1553 - WEL - XX - XX - DR - E - 7000 Rev C03 • LV Services Layout Dwg 15 5 3 - WEL - XX - XX - DR - E - 7001 Rev C03 3) No development shall commence on site (including site preparation , any groundworks and any off - site works ) until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The approved CEMP shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The CEMP shall include, but not be limited to: • Procedures for maintaining good public relations including complaint management; • Public consultation and liaison; • Arrangements for liaison with the Council’s Environmental Protection Team; • All works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary, or at such other place as may be approved by the LPA, shall be carried out only between the following hours: 0730 Hours and 1800 Hours on Mondays to Fridays and 0800 and 1300 Hours on Saturdays and; at no time on Sundays and Public Holidays; • Deliveries and removal of plant, equipment, machinery and waste shall only take place within the permitted hours detailed above; Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 • Mitigation measures as defined in BS 5528: Parts 1 and 2: 2009 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites shall be used to minimise noise disturbance from construction works; • Procedures for emergency deviation of the approved working hours; • An undertaking to require all contractors to be ‘Considerate Contractors’ by being aware of the needs of neighbours and the environment; • Control measures for dust, dirt and other air - borne pollutants; • Measures for controlling the use of lighting whether required for safe working or for security purposes; • Means of direct access (temporary or permanent) to the site from the adjoining maintainable public highway; • The parking and turning of vehicles of operatives and visitors off - carriageway, timeframes of delivery to be provided; • The loading and unloading of plant and materials away from the maintainable public highway, where appropriate; • Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development away from the maintainable public highway; • The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; • A scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway, particularly during the peak periods (i.e. Monday to Friday AM peak (07.30 to 09.30) and PM peak (16.00 to 18.00) periods); • The routes to be used by construction traffic to access and egress the site so as to avoid undue interference with the safety and operation of the public highway and adjacent roads, including construction traffic holding areas both on and off the site as necessary; • Method of cleaning wheels and chassis of all HGV's, plant and delivery vehicles leaving the site; • Means of keeping the site access road and adjacent public highway clear of mud and debris during site demolition, excavation, preparation and construction. No vehicles shall leave the site in a condition whereby mud, clay or other deleterious materials would be deposited on the public highway; and • Implications for and management of Whitchurch Public Footpaths 248/7/1 and 248/504/1 during construction . The CEMP shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be installed and operational before any development commences and retained in working order throughout the duration of the development. 4) No works shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA): (a) A site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as being appropriate by the desk study in accordance with BS10175:2011 - Investigation of Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice; and, unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA , (b) A detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid risk from contaminants or gases when the site is developed. The scheme shall include a timetable of works and site management procedures and the nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works. The scheme shall ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and if necessary, proposals for future maintenance and monitoring. Unless part (a) identifies significant contamination, it may transpire that part (a) is sufficient to satisfy this condition, meaning part (b) need not be subsequently carried out. This would need to be approved in writing by the LPA. If during any works contamination is encountered which has not been previously identified by these reports it shall be reported immediately to the LPA. The additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme, approved in writing by the LPA. 5) No development shall take place until a mitigation method statement relating to dormice that evidences how and when works are to take place and the specific measures that shall be put in place to retain dormice populations in “favourable conservation status” in line with protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (Amended) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be delivered in accordance with the appro ved mitigation method statement. 6) No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological evaluation, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved, a programme of archaeologic al mitigation of impact shall be completed in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation. 7) No development, including land clearance, demolition, groundworks or the delivery of materials, shall commence until an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The AMS shall accord with BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations and shall include, but not be limited to: a) Details of all tree - works operations, including timing and methodology; b) Measures for the protection of all retained trees and hedgerows; c) A schedule of works to be undertaken prior to commencement of development; d) A programme of arboricultural supervision and monitoring; e) Detailed working methods for all operations within the Root Protection Areas (RPAs) of retained trees; f) Existing and proposed levels, including full details of earthworks (cut and fill), supported by cross - sectional drawings; g) Construction methodologies for hard surfacing, access construction and any special engineering solutions within RPAs; h) Details and locations of underground and above - ground services; Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 i) Details of soil amelioration and decompaction within the RPAs of trees impacted by the works; j) The siting of site compounds, storage areas, mixing areas and contractor parking; and k) A schedule of post - construction monitoring and management measures. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the approved AMS. 8) Prior to commencement of development, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) setting out the long - term management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all hard and soft landscaping features. Soft landscape details shall include planting plan, specification (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and tree establishment), schedules of planting noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate, as well as any works to enhance wildlife habitats where appropriate. In addition, implementation timetables and maintenance programmes detailing all operations to be carried out to allow successful establishment of so ft landscaping, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA before development commences. Once approved, the landscaping shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved. 9) No development shall take place until details of any earthworks, including cross - sections and full topographical details demonstrating levels and contours, and details of working within the root protection areas of retained trees detailed within an A rboricultural M ethod S tatement as per Condition 7 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For context, cross - sections and topographical information shall include reference to immediately adjacent topography. 10) No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall include: a) A technical summary highlighting any changes to the design from that within the approved Flood Risk Assessment; b) Detailed drainage plans to include type, layout and dimensions of drainage features including references to link to the drainage calculations; c) Detailed drainage calculations to demonstrate existing runoff rates are not exceeded and there is sufficient attenuation for storm events up to and including 1:100 + climate change; d) Confirmation that sufficient water quality measures have been included to satisfy the methodology in the Ciria SuDS Manual C753; and e) Exceedance plans demonstrating the flow paths and areas of ponding in the event of blockages or storms exceeding design criteria. Once approved, the scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 11) Prior to commencement of development, details of the accessible link between Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 the site and the northern platform at Whitchurch Station shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include specifications for the design of the accessible entrance to ensure suitability for wheelchair users and confirmation that there are appropriate landowner permissions for the works to allow implementation. The footpath and accessible entrance shall be made available for public use prior to first operation of the car park and thereafter retained for that purpose. The details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 12) Prior to the erection of the café building , a scheme containing full details of arrangements for internal air extraction, odour control, and discharge to atmosphere from cooking operations, including any external ducting and flues, and necessary noise control measures determined in accordance with the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems (EMAQ 2018) document, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works detailed in the approved s cheme shall be installed in their entirety before the use hereby permitted is commenced. The equipment shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and operated at all times when cooking is being carried out unless otherwise approved beforehand in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 13) Notwithstanding the annotations and table on External Lighting Layout Dwg 1553 - WEL - XX - XX - DR - E - 7000 Rev C03 , prior to installation of the lighting scheme, a written scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority that specifies the provisions to be made for the level of illumination of the accessible footpath link within the railway embankment between the car park and northern platform. The level of illumination in this area shall be no mo re than 0.2 lux on the horiz ontal plane and 0.4 lux on the vertical plane above the baseline within this area of the site. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the operation of the car park and maintained for the lifetime of the approved development and shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. 14) Details for the long - term maintenance arrangements for the surface water drainage system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first use of the car park. The submitted details shall include m aintenance schedules for each drainage feature type and confirmation of ownership. Once approved, the scheme shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved details. 15) No development above ground level shall take place until a Tree Planting and Establishment Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The Plan shall include: a) The location, species, specification and size of all proposed tree planting; b) Details and cross - sectional drawings of tree planting pits, including soil specification, drainage, aeration and irrigation measures where applicable; c) Details of tree support and protection measures; d) A programme for implementation; and e) A five - year establishment and maintenance schedule. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 20 All tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Plan in the first planting season following completion of the development or such other timetable as approved in writing by the LPA. Any tree planted pursuant to this condition which dies, is removed, becomes seriously damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with a tree of the same species and specification, unless otherwise approv ed in writing by the LPA. 16) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of Condition 4 that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of Condition 4 has been implemented fully in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written approval of the LPA in advance of implementation). Unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA such verification shall comprise: a) As built drawings of the implemented scheme; b) Photographs of the remediation works in progress; and c) Certificates demonstrating that imported and/or material left in situ is free of contamination. Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the scheme approved under Condition 4, unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA. 17) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority certificates demonstrating that a) sufficient sampling of imported material has taken place and b) the imported material is free from unacceptable levels of contamination. Sampling shall take place in situ at a frequency of 1 per 100m 3 . 18) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until a Car Park Management Plan has be en submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include the following details: a) Details of car parking layout to include allocated areas; b) The proposed allocation and arrangement of parking spaces , including disabled blue badge bays; c) The provision of Electric Vehicle Charging Points ; d) A delivery plan for the car park, café and lockers; e) Car parking charges; f) The management responsibilities together with contact details (name , address , telephone , email); g) Maintenance arrangements; h) Enforcement measures; i) Management details of all soft landscape components where these fall within the areas covered by the Plan; j) Management details of all hard landscape elements where these fall within the areas covered by the Plan; k) Maintenance operations for both hard and soft landscape components summarised in chart format stating the frequency and duration over the Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 21 lifetime of the Plan; l) Cleaning operations including graffiti and fly - tipping removal pressure washing re - painting; m) Failed component re - design and installation liabilities/responsibilities/timings; and n) A scheme of review of the Plan to ensure that it remains relevant to the parking requirements of Whitchurch Station. The scheme of review shall be undertaken at five yearly intervals and shall not be more than ten yearly intervals. The car parking shall be provided and managed in accordance with the approved Plan thereafter, or as otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 19) Prior to first use of the electric vehicle car charging points, details of electric vehicle charging provision shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the specification, appearance and siting of any charging points. Once approved, the scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 20) All recommendations outlined in the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment report number 80769 - SRL - RP - YA - 002 - S2 - P1 shall be implemented and completed before the use, hereby approved, is first commenced and shall be thereafter retained and maintained, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 21) Development shall be undertaken in accordance with the Ecology Report dated December 2023 and Addendum Ecology Report dated July 2025 by Applied Ecology including the recommendations made at Section 4. 22) Following completion of archaeological fieldwork, a report produced in accordance with an approved programme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority setting out and securing appropriate post - excavation assessment, spe cialist analysis and reports, publication and public engagement. 23) The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) under C ondition 7 and shall be subject to supervision by a suitably qualified and experienced Arboricultural Clerk of Works (ACoW). The ACoW shall: a) Attend a pre - commencement site meeting with the developer, principal contractor and Local Planning Authority (if required by the Local Planning Authority); b) Oversee the installation of tree protection measures; c) Supervise all operations within the Root Protection Areas of retained trees; d) Monitor compliance with the approved A MS throughout construction; e) Undertake a post - construction inspection and attend a project completion meeting; and f) Submit written site supervision records to the Local Planning Authority of items a - c; at approved intervals as per the approved AMS for item d; and upon completion of development. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 22 No works within the Root Protection Area of retained trees shall take place unless the ACoW is present and has confirmed that the methodology accords with the approved AMS. 24) No development shall take place until the access point and visibility splays as shown in Site Access Arrangement Dwg ITB16002 - GA - 027 Rev C have been laid out and constructed in accordance with the relevant details shown on that drawing. Thereafter they shall be retained for that purpose and kept clear of obstructions .⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
The appeal scheme accords with Local Plan Policy SS11 . It would not be ‘major development’ in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . 65. There would be some adverse effects leading to some conflict with Local Plan Policy EM1. These , though, should be understood in the context of the Policy SS11 allocation. Any Policy SS11 compliant scheme would have some landscape and visual impacts. The appeal scheme’s effects would be localised and any harm would be no more than moderate in the longer term. It would have no significant effect s on trees and accord with Framework paragraph 187 . 66. There would also be benefits in landscape and visual terms compared to the approach favoured by the Council resulting from the creation of a tree belt rather than rel ying purely on on - site landscaping . 67. Overall, the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the National Landscape and be compatible with the Statutory Duty . Moreover, for the reasons outlined above, the scheme would accord with the development plan viewed as a whole and comply with paragraph 189 of the Framework . 68. Although I have not done so , had I concluded that the appeal scheme were to represent ‘major development’ , in…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3373972 (Cornwall Council) — 2026-05-26
📍 Cornwall Council LPA code: E06000052 PINS reference: 3373972 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 March 2026 by Juliet Rogers BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 Land a djacent to Valley Lane, Quenchwell Road, Carnon Downs, Cornwall TR3 6JS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant permission in principle . • The appeal is made by Mr M Yates and Mrs C Mitchell against the decision of Cornwall Council. • The application Ref is PA25/01765. • The development proposed is the construction of a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 5 dwellings. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the construction of a minimum of 4 and a maximum of five dwellings at Land adjacent to Valley Lane, Quenchwell Road, Carnon Downs, Cornwall TR3 6JS , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/01765. Preliminary Matters and Main Issues 2. As part of the appeal, the appellant has submitted a Preliminary Landscape Visual Appraisal 1 . As t his was not before the Council when the application was determined and the subject of consultation, were I to take this into account as part of my decision this would result in procedural unfairness as intere sted parties may not have had the opportunity to provide comments on it . I have, therefore, determined the appeal based on the details submitted considered by the Council a t the application stage . 3. The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing - led development. The permission in principle consent route has two stages. The first stage establis hes whether a site is suitable in principle with the scope of the considerations limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted 2 . All other matters are then considered as part of the second stage, via a Technical Details Consent (TDC) application , including detailed development proposals should permission in principle be granted . This appeal relates to the first of these two stages. Given the limited scope of the application, I have treated any details submitted which c onstitute elements beyond matters relating to location, land use and amount as being indicative . 4. The appeal site is located within the catchment of the Fal and Helford Special Area of Conservation (SAC), a European Designated Site afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2009 (as amended). Whilst not 1 Prepared by FPCR, dated September 2025 2 Paragraph: 012 Reference ID: 58 - 012 - 20180615 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 indicated as a reason for refusal, it is incumbent upon me, as the competent authority, to consider whether the proposal would be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the SAC. As the main parties have addressed this as part of the application, no party would be prejudiced by this matter being dealt with as a main issue. 5. Consequently , the main issues are: • whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development , with particular regard to the local development strategy and the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area ; and • whether the proposal would be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the Fal and Helford SAC . Reasons Local development strategy 6. Policy 2 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 - 2030 (Local Plan) establishes the objectives which underpin the spatial strategy for the delivery of new development, emphasising that growth will be accommodated in the main towns and city where it can best support regeneration. This hierarchical approach is expanded within Policy 3 of the Local Plan through the identification of the main settlements. Carnon Downs is not identified as a main settlement . Notwithstanding this, Policy 3 of the Local Plan does not restrict housing growth from areas other than at the main towns but rather indicates the circumstances where such development would be appropriate. 7. The circumstance o f relevance to the appeal site is where residential development would result in the rounding off of a settlement, within or immediately adjoining it, and of a scale appropriate to its size and role. While the term ‘rounding off’ is not defined within Policy 3 of the Local Plan itself, its supporting text refers to it comprising development on land that is substantially enclosed but outside of the urban form of a settlement and where its edge is clearly defined by a physical feature (or fea tures) that also act as a barrier to further growth. 8. The appeal site is also located beyond the Carnon Downs settlement boundary, as defined within the Feock Neighbourhood Development Plan (FNDP) . The site boundary is separated from t his designation , other than where access off Valley Lane is p roposed, by an area identified in the FNDP as a sensitive sett lement edge which encompasses part of the small stream valley. Properties marked on the Location Plans as The Beeches and The Willows adjoin the site; - bo th of which are also located beyond the settlement boundary . The refore, the site is not within Ca rn on Downs boundary nor is it located immediately adjoining it. 9. The boundaries to the site are clearly defined by landscape features comprising established hedgerows , Quen chwell Road , the aforementioned residential properties and the Carnon Downs Garden Centre . As similarly concluded by the Inspector on a previous appeal 3 , these features e nclose the site and would act as a significant barrier to further growth. 3 Appeal ref: APP/D 0840/W/23/3327622 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 10. Nonetheless, Policy 7 of the Local Plan stipulates that the development of new homes in open countryside , defined as the area outside of the physical boundaries of existing settlements (where they have a clear form and shape), will only be permitted where there are special circumstances. In this case, the designated settlement boundary within the FNDP establishes the physical boundary of the site. As the proposal does not meet any of the special circumstances to development in the open countryside, it confl icts with Policy 7 of the Local Plan . 11. My attention has also been drawn to the CPOAN 4 which further elaborates upon Policy 3 of the Local Plan , highlighting the attributes considered to be components of a suitable site for r ounding off , including that it is likely to be surrounded on at least two sides by existing built development. In the case of the appeal site , the garden centre adjoins one side boundary with The Beech es adjacent another and, t ogether with Quenchwell Road, these surround the equivalent of at least two sides of the site. 12. However, due to the use of the word ‘likely’ is not a prescriptive requirement and, in any event, the contents of the CPOAN provides guidance only to the application of Policy 3 of the Local Plan . It does not form part of the adopted development plan. Furthermore, whether or not a s ite can be described as surrounded by existing built development also requires an assessment of the components which contribute to the character and appearance of an area. 13. As the appeal site is separated from the existing dwellings on Valley Lane by the wooded sensitive edge and the enclosed generous garden setting of The Beeches, visual connections between these properties and the site were partially restricted by existing landscape features at the time of my site visit . However, the presence of the built form nearby is appreciable from various locations within the site, giv en the topography of the stream’s valley. In particular, t he white render ed exterior of the properties between the site and Bissoe Road mean they are prominent features in these views. Similarly, the scale and bulk of the garden centre buildings and the presence of good s and equipment stored close to the sparsely vegetated boundary provides a feeling of being surrounded by built for m . 14. In contrast, visual connections to Quenchwell Road were, at the time of my site visit, blocked by the dense planting on parts of this edge of the site and, due to its elevated position, the carriageway itself wa s hidden. Other than noise from traffic moving along it , the road’s influence on the character of the site is minimal. However, when travelling along the road, particularly towards Carnon Downs, the site is appreciated as a clear gap in the bu i lt form, betwee n the garden centre and the properties between Valley Lane and Bissoe Road and, to a lesser extent, The Beeches. Beyond its junction with Valley Lane , the site forms part of a n area of transition from the main settlement form into the countryside. As similarly observed by the Inspector on the previous appea l, this point of change corresponds with the designated settlement boundary. 15. The situation on the ground also reflects the description of the Cornwall Character Area for Carnon Valley (CCA15) being located within the shelter of a valley where fields are smaller and boundary more sinuous. The proposal would, therefore, result in an extension of Carnon Downs . This is not disputed by the appellant. Furthermore , although t he ability of the site to lend itself to a successful 4 Chief Planning Officer’s Advice Note: Infill/Rounding Off (December 2017) (CPOAN) Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 agricultural enterprise is limited by its small scale and accessibility , these factor s do not alter my conclusio ns regarding the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area, even with the retention of the field pattern and boundary features. 16. S ince the previous appeal, t raffic calming measures have been introduced on Quenchwell Road between its junction with Valley Lane and the garden centre . These works include a highway build out to provide priority to those travelling south along the road , new street lighting and signage , and the relocation of the settlement sign to the other side of the garden centre. T hese changes have , to a small degree, urbanised the highway . However, they have not altered the character of the site nor its immediate surrounds to a degree sufficient for me to conclude the introductio n of residential development in this location would not lead to the visual extension of Carnon Downs into the countryside . 17. Additionally, the recently constructed residential development off Ash Tree Close 5 and the further five dwellings approved in 2024 6 on l and adjoining it , are located nearer to the main form of the settlement and before the aforementioned point of change which travelling out of Carnon Downs . Given the openness to the road near Ash Tree Close and the dominance of built form rather than natural features, these new developments have a character more readily associated with Carnon Downs , despite also located beyond the designated settlement boundary. 18. I conclude that the proposal would not be suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development , with particular regard to the local development strategy and the character and appearance of the area . It, therefore, conflicts with policies 2, 3, 7, 12 , 21 and 23 of the Local Plan which, combined, set out the local development strategy whilst seeking to protect the local landscape and built form character through, amongst other things, making the best use of land . I attach great weight to t he proposal’s conflict with the local development stra tegy while the harm to the character and appearance of the area would be moderate. 19. The decision notice indicates that the proposal conflicts with Policy 8 of the Local Plan. However, as this policy relates to the provision of affordable housing within developments comprising ten (10) dwellings or more, Policy 8 is not determinative in my decision. The fact that the proposal is not seeking to meet the definition of a rural exception site as set out in Policy 9 is not, in and of itself, a reason to refuse the application . Fal and Helford SAC 20. The special interest of the Fal and Helford SAC relates to the saltmarsh, mudflat, sandbank and reef habitats of interest that, amongst others, make up the drowned river valleys of the Fal Estuary and Helford River. The overarching objective for the management of the SAC is the ongoing protection of these internationa lly important habitats. One of the issues preventing this objective being met relates to the increased pressure to access the area for recreational purposes, as well as from urbanisation and da mage caused by pets, resulting from a rise in the population living nearby. 5 Reserved Matters Ref: PA19/11087; dated 23 April 2020 6 Council Ref: PA23/10329 ; dated 21 October 2024 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 21. As the proposal would lead to an increase in the number of people living in the area, it would, therefore, lead to an increase in the number of visitors to the SAC for recreational purposes. When considered alone or in combination with other plans or proje cts, it would have the potential to result in likely significant effects on the SAC. Consequently, it is necessary for me, as the competent authority, to conduct an Appropriate Assessment concerning the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the SAC. 22. As part of the application, the appellant submitted a signed s111 undertaking, together with a fee based on the number of dwellings proposed. This reflects the mitigation fees set out within the Council’s European Sites Mitigation Supplementary Planning Do cument (SPD), as required by policies 22 and 23 of the Local Plan. The Council will use the fees to deliver a Strategic Access Management and Monitoring project for the SAC, so that it is more resilient to visitor pressure. 23. I conclude therefore, that, subject to mitigation, the proposal would not be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the SAC and accords with policies 22 and 23 of the Local Plan, and the SPD in this respect. Other Considerations 24. Several concerns have been made by interested parties regarding the proposal , some of which have already been addressed in the reasoning above . The evidence before me indicates that , as a small part of the site is susceptible to surface water flooding (1 in 100 year) and rainfall (1 in 1000 year), a flood risk assessment will be required as part of any application for TDC. No works to the trees to the rear of the properties along Valley Lane, alongside the stream, form part of the proposal and this area, in any event, lies outside the site boundary. 25. Others relate to detailed development proposals, such as the effect of the proposal on drainage , the condition of Valley Lane, the potenti al to provide a footpath link through the development and biodiversity matters. As such, they fall to be considered at the TDC stage, should such an application be submitted. An application for TDC must be decided in accordance with terms of the permission in principle granted for the site and the relevant policies in the development plan, unless there are material consid erations , such as the Framework, which indicate otherwise. The granting of permission in principle does not mean that a n application for TDC will automatically be approved . Planning Balance and Conclusion 26. The provision of four or five additional dwellings would be beneficial to the local housing stock, with social and economic benefits derived from their construction and occupation. The use of a greenfield site where the re would be an increase in building density gains some support from Policy 21 of the Local Plan f rom an environmental perspective. Given the s ize of the proposal, although these benefits would be moderate in scale, they could be delivered quickly. 27. However, I have found that the site would not be suitable for residential development given its conflict with the local development strategy and it would lead to a moderate level of harm to the character and appearance of the area. My conclusion relating t o the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the SAC is a Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 neutral matter. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole. 28. The evidence before me indicates that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five - year supply of deliverable housing sites, with the latest position, as set out within the Cornwall 5 Year Housing Land Supply Statement (1 July 2025), representing a 3.9 year supply. This deficit is not insignificant and represents a materially different housing supply position from the previous appeal was determined a s, at that time, a five - year supply of deliverable housing sites could be demonstrated. 29. The consequence of the housing supply position is that the presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 11dii of the Framework is engaged . This states that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole . As the FNDP was made in 2017, it exceeds the age required at paragraph 14 of the Framework to meet the exemption to the aforementione d presumption. 30. While t he hierarchical approach to the distribution of new homes across the Council’s area set out at Policy 2 of the Local Plan is broadly consi stent with the Framework as a whole , as confirmed in the Cornwall Interim Policy Position Statement 7 (CIPPS) , the Local Plan’s housing targets are not . Therefore, as also identifie d in the CIPPS, the weight given or the way Policy 3 is applied in decisions has changed as a result of the current housing land supply deficit . I attach moderate weight to the proposal’s conflict with Policy 3 . 31. Policies 7, 12 , 21 and 23 of the Local Plan are broadly consistent with the Framework’s approach to ensuring development is sympathetic to its local character and landscape setting, as well as the enhancement of the natural environment . As I have found that the proposal would lead to a moderate level of harm to the character and appearance of the area, I attach a corresponding moderate weight to the proposal’s conflict with these policies. 32. Consequently, I conclude that the adverse impact s of the proposal do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. 33. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed . Juliet Rogers INSPECTOR 7 April 2025 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
The provision of four or five additional dwellings would be beneficial to the local housing stock, with social and economic benefits derived from their construction and occupation. The use of a greenfield site where the re would be an increase in building density gains some support from Policy 21 of the Local Plan f rom an environmental perspective. Given the s ize of the proposal, although these benefits would be moderate in scale, they could be delivered quickly. 27. However, I have found that the site would not be suitable for residential development given its conflict with the local development strategy and it would lead to a moderate level of harm to the character and appearance of the area. My conclusion relating t o the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the SAC is a
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3370033 (Charnwood Borough Council) — 2026-05-26
📍 Charnwood Borough Council LPA code: E07000130 PINS reference: 3370033 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 10 - 12 February , 25 - 26 March , 30 March and 20 April 2026 Site visit made on 2 4 April 2026 . by Helen Hockenhull BA (Hons) B.Pl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 th May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 Land to the rear (west) of 83 Cotes Road, Barrow upon Soar, LE12 8JP • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission • The appeal is made by William Davis Limited against Charnwood Borough Council. • The application Ref is P/23/1582/2. • The development proposed is o utline planning application for residential development including associated infrastructure and open space, demolition of 87 Cotes Road and refurbishment works to 83 Cotes Road, plus details of access. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for residential development including associated infrastructure and open space, demolition of 87 Cotes Road and refurbishment works to 83 Cotes Road, plus details of access at l and to the rear (west) of 83 Cotes Road, Barrow upon Soar, LE12 8JP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/23/1582/2, s ubject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. The appeal is submitted in outline with all matters reserved except for that of access. An Illustrative layout plan was submitted with the application. I have considered it on this basis. 3. After submission of statements of case but before the Inquiry commenced, the Charnwood Local Plan was adopted. The proofs of evidence were able to take this updated policy position into account. 4. The site forms the southern part of a residential allocation for 220 dwellings the subject of Policy DS 2 (HA49) in the recently adopted Charnwood Local Plan . A d evelopment b rief and c oncept p l a n for the whole allocation w ere also submitted w ith the application to comply with the requirement s of the policy. 5. The appeal was against a failure to determine the application . T he Council subsequently resolved that had it been able to determine the application it would have been refused for f ive reasons which in summary rel a t e to : • t he inadequacy of the c oncept p lan and the d evelopment b rief (Rev E) • e cology and b iodiversity • t he loss of protected and mature trees without mitigation Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 • d esign constraints and overdevelopment • the need to s ecur e necessary Infrastructure to mitigate the impact of development. 6. Within an agreed timeframe after the Inquiry, the appellant submitted a final completed section 106 agreement and Unilateral Undertaking. The se documents set out a number of provisions to come into effect if the appeal is allowed. I return to this later in my decision. 7. During the course of the appeal, a consultation on a revised National Planning Policy Framework ( the Framework) took place . There is nothing within the consultation which suggests policy might change in a manner which would require revisiting any of the issues set out below. In any event the consultation is at an early stage and any proposed changes to the Framework can carry no weight at this stage . Main Issues 8. The main issues in this case are: • Whether the c oncept m asterplan and d evelopment b rief achieve a comprehensive development for the wider allocation achieving high quality design in respect to access, open space, landscape, education, ecology and heritage. • Whether the proposed development represents high quality design and whether the site capacity is appropriate. • Whether the appeal proposal achieves an appropriate biodiversity net gain having regard to the biodiversity mitigation hierarchy. • Whether the proposed development protects and enhances the natural environment including existing trees on the site and whether appropriate mitigation is proposed. • Whether the proposed d rainage s trategy is appropriate to address surface water and avoid adverse impacts on the nearby Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and landscape character. • Whether the proposal provides the necessary Infrastructure to mitigate its im pacts with particular regard to the provis i o n of open space, education and off - site highway improvement works . Reasons Background 9. The appeal site comprises greenfi eld land of approximately 3.71 ha located to the rear (west) of 83 C otes Road , Barrow upon Soar . It encompasses the two vacant properties of no’s 83 an d 87 Cotes Road, their curtilages and land to the south west extending to the M idland Mainline railway which runs alongside the north west bank of the R iver Soar . Lime trees al ong the site frontage with Cotes Road are the subject of a group Tree Preservation Order. A large b lack p oplar tree in the centre of the site is s imilarly protected but unfortuna tely it suffered a catastrophic fa ilure during a storm just be fore t h e Inquiry began. The site also lies south east of Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 Railway Fields L WS and a public right of way runs along the southern boundary an d then through the western section of the site. 10. The appeal site lies at the southern end of a larger parcel of land all ocat ed for re s id ential development of 220 dwellings in Policy DS 2 (HA49) of the a do pted Charnwood Local Plan. The allocation comprises five development parcels in different ownerships. I shall refer to them as parcels A - E as described i n the submitted c oncept m asterplan. The appeal site is Parcel E . Two other parcels are the subject of outline planning applications for residential development which have yet to be determined by the Council. Th is includes Parcel D, immediately north of the ap peal site submitted by Ashbe r ry S trategic Land (Ashberry) and Parcel B further t o the north s ubmitted by St . Phillips Land Ltd (St . Phillips) , who are a R ule 6 party to this appeal. Concept Masterp lan and Development Brief 11. Policy DS2(HA49) requires that before outline planning permission is granted for the allocation or a n y part of it , a masterplan will be agreed which includes delivery and phasing arrangements for the whole allocation in order to achieve comprehensive development. It also requires a development brief , design code o r equivalent to be prepared to inform decisions on detailed planning applicat ions or reserved mat t ers applications to ensure a cohesive approach to design and ensure impacts are satisfactorily miti gated. 12. The appeal proposals include a c oncept m asterplan which is included within a d evelopment b rief . Whil st the policy requires the master plan to be agreed, the Lo cal P lan does not specifically state who it is to be agreed with. In my view it seems reasonable to conclude that the masterplan should be agreed by all landowners and the Cou ncil . Th is is the view of the app ellant and St . Philips Land . 13. The landowner for P arcel C has not engaged in the planning process to date. So that it cannot be said that all landowners are i n agreement. The owner of Parcel A did not respond to their invitation to collaborate on the masterplan but did respond at the planning application stage, raising no objection. 14. It is worth clarifying that the masterplan and development brief were prepared by consultants led by S t . Phillips through a joint instruction between the three active developers , the ap pellant , St . Phillips and Ashberry Strategic Land . The documents were th e n submitted to the Council in support of the respective outline planning applications in 2023. 15. Following negotiations with the Cou ncil, St . Phillips an d A sh berry have pro duced dif f e re nt iterations of the original brief and masterplan taking on board comments from the C ou nci l as well as further technical information . Most notably the Ashbe r ry m asterplan propose s vehic ular access to the appeal site through their land parcel , with the appeal site having no separate vehicular access. It does however show a ped e st rian /cycle / emergency access from the ap peal site onto Cote s Road . It a lso indicates a reduced capacity for the app ea l site of 55 dwellings . 16. The Cou ncil argues that on this basis, the re is no longer agr eement o n the masterplan by the active developers . However, it is not surprising that the individual developers have dif ferent views with regard their individual parcels as they seek to maximise the ir development potential. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 17. M asterplans are a framework to guide development. T hey are not meant to be r i g id fixed proposals but in stead flexible frameworks that accommodate different development scenarios . They should be living docum en ts , which can evolve with changed circumstances and more information following technical investigations . T he Cou ncil’s U rban D e sign witness in cross examination accepted that the re is nothing in national policy or guidance which ind icates that dev e l o p ment briefs cannot change and a feature of their use was that they evolve over t i me having regard to information available at later stages. 18. I acknowledge there is a r is k of different masterplans for different pa rcels of development that are materially different, contrary to t he p olicy objective of a masterplan ensuring a comprehen si ve and cohesive development . If o n e accepts the pre mise that the first approved masterplan and development brief becomes the starting point or the governing framework, further iterations from subsequent appli cations ca n be based up o n i t, still ensuring the objective of comprehensive d e vel opment. The task of achieving this and ensuring that t her e are not a series of conflicting masterplans but broad accordance, lies with the Cou ncil in determining subsequent applications . Taking this approach there should be no need for subsequent section 73 ap plications on parcels already granted planning permission . 19. I recognise that Policy DS2(HA49) does not envisage a series of masterplans and dev e l o p ment briefs. In an ideal situation , there would be one masterplan and development brief for the whole allocation, agreed by all parties and stakeholders, secured through planning conditions and legal agreements. H owever, that is not the position here. 20. St . Phillips Urban Design witness set out the collaboration that has taken place between the Cou ncil and the three active de ve lopers which has resulted in the submi ssion of five versions of the masterplan and development brief between No vember 2023 to August 2025 . Whilst the development brief ha s not been agreed by the Co uncil to date, it ha s been amended to take on board their comments. 21. T hrough the appl ication of Policy DS2(HA49) , the Council are expecting the five landowners to produce a masterplan and development brief. However, to require this with the respective landowners having different levels of current involvement , at different stages in the development process is very challenging. The Council have not prepared any guidance or design code for the allocation themselves. Indeed, the Barrow upon Soar Village Design Statement appended to the Neighbourhood Plan , provides no site - specific guidance but good practice urb an design guidance. 22. The approach put forward by the ap pellant and St . Phillips , with the masterplan and development brief being viewed as living documents that can evolve as the individual parcels come forward , seems to me to be a pragmatic solution to bring the allocation forward and build much need ed market and affordable housing in the Borough. 23. For the sake of clarity, s hould I allow the app eal, the approved masterplan and development brief for the app eal scheme, could no t in law, be binding on the other parcels in the allo ca tion. The y would however form material considerations for their determination . Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 24. The question I must now address is whether the submitted masterplan and development brief are f i t for purpose and comply with the requirements of Policy DS2(HA49). 25. The Policy requires the masterplan to include d e l ivery and phasing arrangements . Th e Phasing and Delivery Parameter Plan in the d evelopment b rief shows t he phasing arrange ment s are largely base d on the timing of the applications on the various parcels . This is not unacceptable . In fact, there is some logic in the ap peal scheme and the adjacent P arcel D, at the southern end of the all ocation being in the first phase of d e vel opment . I acknowledge that t he proposed phasing in the b rief does not take account of education capacity , unlike the Ashber r y b rie f which states that beyond the figure of 220 dwellings additional capacity w o u l d be needed. I do not consider that the brief specifically needs to address this , as this matter would be considered in a n y event through the development mana gement process . 26. The Policy also requires that the masterplan achieves comprehensive development . Ther e is no explanation in the Plan as to what this means, and I am not directed to any other definition in national policy or guidance . My view is that in essence it means consideration of connectivity both to and within the allocation site , a chieving a high quality of development with its own identity taking account of context , built form, movement, open spaces and biodiversity . 27. Policy DS4 of the adopted Local Plan seeks to ensure high quality design and provide s that planning permission will be refused for development that is n o t wel l designed , with reference to design methods such as Building for Healthy Life. (BfHL ) . The submitted d evelopment b rief includes a BfHL assessment and shows that against every metric , the b rief scores green. This contrasts with t he Cou ncil ’ s assessment which identifie s a number o f deficiencies . Clearly a development brief is a high - level document, and it may be more d ifficult to assess c ertain criteria than others wi th the level of detail available at this stage . I discuss th ese criticisms fu rther be low. 28. The Access and Movement Parameter Plan in the d evelopment b rief illustrates a primary street which is not continuous throughout the allocation . The Parameter Plan also shows that t he three northernmost parcels , A, B and C are in effect served by cul de sacs from multiple accesses from C otes Road. There is, however, pedestrian and cycle connectivity through the allocation . This provides an awkward break in the street hierarchy resulting in a fragmentation and lack of permeability. This ma t ter can however be resolved in the submi ssion of the re s p ective planning ap pli cations for Parcels A. B and C , for example by upgrading the s eco ndary street indicated o n the paramet e r plan to a primary route. 29. The Constraints and Opportunities P l a n points out the long views to Beacon H ill which can be achieved from the cemetery. The Build i ng Heights Par a meter Plan indicates up to two storey development at the south west boundary o f the cemetery . The Cou ncil expresses concern that d e velop ment of this height could adversely affect these views. Having looked at these o n site , I do not find that building s of thi s height would completely block these vi stas . Furthermore, up to two storeys does not mean that all the development in this location would be this height . O ne and half storey dwellings with accommodation in the roof space could be provided which further safeguards these views. This would be a matter for the Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 Cou ncil to consider further when a reserved mat t ers application on Parcel D comes forward. 30. The Landscape and Green Infrastructure Parameter Plan shows a hedge between Parcel A and B which is to be retained . It is however sandwiched between resi dential blocks . T her e are also breaks proposed within it to facilitate pedestrian / cycle connectivity . T he re is a risk that th is hedge w ould be compromised over time and w ould eventually be lost. Furthermore, t he open space provision is not policy compl i ant , overproviding natural an d semi natural spaces and fa iling to deliver parks and play provi si on particularly in re s p ec t to Parcel A . Again, this can be considered in more det ail when applications come forward on this parcel. 31. The d ev e l o p ment b rief acknowledge s the need for sensitive design by the c emetery . Whilst there is n o buffer indicated between the cemetery and the propose d housing block indicated on t h e m asterplan, t he car park extension to the southern end o f the ceme tery itself , acts as a buffer between residential development and the more reflective areas of the cemetery . F urther consideration can be given to the need for further measures to protect this sensitive area at detailed planning stage for Parcel D . The implications of development o n the setting of the locally listed chapels w ithin the cemetery is considered in a Heritage Report prepared by Ashbe r ry t o accompany their outline planning ap plication on Parcel D. Further consideration of this ma t ter can again be made at reserved matters stage. 32. In respect to the scheme before me in this a ppe a l, I am satisfied that due to t he mature landscaping on the boundary of the cemetery and the distance between the locally listed buil dings a n d the ap pea l s ite, t her e is no harm to their setting. 33. St . Phillips the Ru le 6 party have prepared an updated masterplan and d e vel o p ment brief to accompany their li ve outline app lication taking on board a number of the above criticisms . This demonstrates that a further iteration of the mas te rpla n and development brief can b e prepared that remains in broad accordance with the version submitted with this appe a l. 34. The criticisms raised by the Cou ncil relate to detailed design matters i n relation to individual parcel s . They are ma t ter s of planning judgment which are ca pable of being addressed at la ter stages in the planning process. It is pertinent to my consideration of this appeal, that Policy HA49 do e s not require the D e vel o p ment B rief to be agreed but to be prepared. To provide clarity and certainty , conditions could be imposed to require accordance with t he Key Site Wide Design Principles stated in the d evelopment b rief and broad accordance with the remaining content of the document ie the parameter plans and c oncept m asterplan . 35. In summary given the above, I am satisfied that the submitted masterplan and d ev elopment b rief are suffic ie nt to p rovide a framework to ensure comprehensive development across the allo cation , to mitigat e the impacts and to inform deci sion s on detailed planning applications or reserved mat t ers ap plications . They form living documents capable of being updated by the developers of the other parcels within the allocation and fulfil the requirement s of Policy DS2(HA49) . High quality design and overdevelopment 36. As o utline planning permission is being sought for up to 70 dwellings , i t is necessary for me to consider whether the site is capable of delivering that number Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 of dwellings , bearing in mind the site constraints and policy requirements . The se constraints include the trees on the site , access and connectivity, the need to mitigate biodiv er sity loss, open space provi si on, the public right of way crossing the site, drainage, noise from the railway line and the principles of good design . 37. In cross examination, the Cou ncil’s planning witness suggested that a capacity of 40 - 50 dwellings would be appropriate on the site. The witness increased the upper part of this range by 5 dwellings to 55 , to take account of the loss of the black poplar tree in the c entre of the site. 38. The a ppellant in evidence was keen to state that the figure of 70 dwellings had been ‘tested’ through the design process. However, there is no plan before me to show a scheme with 70 units laid out, the illustrative layout only shows blocks of properties. Equally, the Council’s suggested range of up to 55 dwellings is not supporte d by a layout plan. 39. The appellant’s urban design witness ex plained in ev id ence that taking account of site constraints, the net developable a rea equated to around 2ha , approximately 54% of the site . At a density of a round 30 - 35 dwellings per hectare, which is n o t out of keeping with the surrounding area , th is suggest s a site capacity of approximately 70 dwellings . The Council argues that t aking account of all of the trees which are the subject of tree preservation orders to be retained, the proposed attenuation pond, the existing group of trees on the northern boundary and the two retained dwellings, the net developable area of the site falls to less than 50% of the redline area. Whilst the Council’s estimate is less precise, it indicates only a relatively small difference between the parties . 40. I take account of other variables that impact on capacity. A ll parties agree that typologies and housing mix can make a difference , for example the provision of terraced housing or apartments . Capacity is also de pendent on the e x t en t to which a policy compliant scheme for replacement tr e es and biodiv er s it y improvement is provided on site or off site, a ma t ter I return to below. The above variable s suggest th ere is some flexibility. 41. The difference between the appellant ’ s and Council’s capacity estimates equates to 15 dwellings 1 . B ased on the evidence before me, consideration of the variables discussed above , together with the estimate s of the net developable area, I conclude that the site would h ave the capacity to provide up to 70 dwellings . 42. The Council has criticised t he submitted Illustrative Site Layout for a number of re asons . These are all r e lated to design issues such as the proxi mi ty of residential gardens to the southern boundary , the extent of cut and fill to cr e ate the atten ua tion pond , dwellings shown ba c king on to the atten ua tion pond rather than facing it for natural surveillance, and the proximity of the public right of way to rear gardens resulting in privacy loss raising security and safety issues. 43. T hese are all important de si gn matters. However, the illustrative layout is as the ti tl e suggest s , illustrative . It provide s a suggested layout, and i t i s not to be dete rm ined at this outline stage. Thes e ma t ters c a n all be considered in depth a t res er ved matters stage to ensure approp riate separation distances , green buffers , privacy and amenity for future resid ents as well as high quality design and 1 70 - 55=15 dwellings Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 materials. I f the se matters c annot be re s o l ved to the Cou ncil’ s satisfaction , it should re sult in the det ailed scheme being refused planning perm is sion. 44. Overall , I am satisfied that a high - quality design can be achieved in line with Policy DS4 of the adopted Local Plan and the Barrow upon Soar Neighbourhood Plan Policy BuS4 . Biodiversity net gain 45. There remain two areas of dispute between the Cou n c il and the app el lant, namely whether the BNG pro posals are realistic and achievable and whether the p r o po sal is an approp riate response to the ecological mitigation hierarchy. There is also dispute about the impact on the Catsick Marsh and Railway Fields LWS’s which I address separately in relation to drainage. 46. The appeal proposal is exempt f r om the mandatory 10% B iodi versity Net Gain (BNG) requirement under the Environment Act 2021 because the appli cation was submitted prior to February 2024. Nevertheless, the Framework in paragraph 187 d) seeks , amongst other things , to minimise impacts on biodiversity. Local Plan Policy EV6 also requires development proposal s to demonstrate how they have been designed to minimise ecological impacts . 47. T he appe lla nt ’ s revised Metric, which is agreed by the parties as a baseline valuation, demonstrates a net loss of 47.47%. This is a significant figure. It seems logical that reducing the capacity of the site would also reduce the habitat loss. However, I note that an earlier draft scheme for around 60 dwellings still resulted in nearly 40% habitat loss. In fact, it seems very unlikely that even with a scheme for 55 dwellings as suggested by the Council , that a significant net loss c ould be avoided. The question of wheth er a reduced quantum of d e ve lo pment could have produced a lower net loss o r more acceptable loss and how that was factored into design decisions is however irrelevant to my consideration . I must assess the scheme before me. 48. T he appe a l s ch e me proposes to retain and enhance the traditional orchard, a habitat of high distinctiveness . The vast majority of existing vegetation on the site boundaries is also retained. T he existing scrub habitat by the railway line is to be enhanced with the removal of ruderal vegetation such as nettles and s terile b rome. The northern boundary vegetation is also retained , apart f r o m a break within it to allow access to the Ashberry site , Parcel D . 49. It is agreed that mitigation for the loss of a barn owl roost and day roost for bats when the b lack p oplar t ree in the centre of the site failed would be incorporated into the scheme. Mitigation measures including the protection of habitats an d species during construction can be secured through the imposition of appropriately worded planning conditions. The attenuation pond is l ocated more than 20 metres from the LWS , complying with the recommended buffer detailed in the Council’s E cological Report submitt ed to the Lo cal Plan Examination . 50. The Illustrative Site Layout suggests that dwellings could back onto the southern site boundary where it is proposed to retain and manage the existing overgrown scrub and hedgerow. There is a risk that occupants may seek to extend their gardens or may tip grass cuttings over the fence resulting in the area ’ s degradation. I acknowledge that this can be difficult to enforce. However, the design and or height of the boundary treatment could deter such activity. This Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 could be considered further at reserved matters stage. An important consideration is that at t he other side of the boundary is the public right of way , which would ensure public surveillance of this area. 51. The Council also point to the possibility of further post development BNG loss in particular in relation to the grassland. The Council argue it will be difficult to maintain its ‘good quality’ . This is because maintaining the area with a variable sward height, can conflict with the need for short mown grass for recreational use. It may of course be possible to combine the two with different mowing regimes for different areas. I accept that trampling may also affect its condition, though some species are more tolerant of this than others. In any event, enhancements that could be achieved within the grassland areas are fairly small and not significant in terms of overall net gain. 52. The Ecological Mitigation Hierarchy provides a framework to avoid, minimise, restore or offset biodiversity loss. The Framework in paragraph 193 states that when determining planning applications , if significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused. Policy DS2 (HA49) of the Local Plan states in the supporting text that net gain should be achieve d on site rather than through off site contributions. Howeve r, the text also goes on to refer to Policy EV6, which provides for offsetting where appropriate. The question therefore is whether this is appropriate in this case. 53. In terms of a voidance , the originally submitted ill ustrative layout proposed the use o f the existing access to N o . 83 Cotes R oad. However, this would have require d the access going through the rear garden area and the traditional o rchard which is a h a b itat o f high distinctiveness . The scheme was then amended to avoid harm to this area, and a new access was pro posed f rom Cotes Road , though this would require the removal of a number o f TPO’d l i me trees . 54. I accept that there are limitations within the site to provide full mitigation for the anticipated loss of BNG. There are a number of reasons for this. The majority of the appeal site consists of low distinctive grassland, approximately 2.3 ha out of a tot al site area of 3.7 ha, over 62%. The retained modified grassland on the site is in good condition. It therefore has limited potential to increase its value. The nature of the green space on the site which is linear and fragmented reduces the opportunity f or large scale habitat creation. Furthermore, the necessary infrastructure such as the access and drainage reduces the area available for mitigation. Bringing all this together, t he appropriate way forward is therefore to provide both on - site and off - site mitigation , in line with Policy EV6 . 55. I acknowledge that ideally , a masterplan for the whole site would have been prepared which could co ns ider th e overall biodiv ersity l oss and provide for its mitigation within the al location as a whole . However, i t would have be e n difficult for the appellant to try to assess this , given the land ownership constr aints of the all ocation. What is important is that the appeal scheme mitigates its own impact . 56. The appellant proposes a compensation site at Rothley . This is a site within the appellant ’ s control and has planning per m i ssion for res idential development . The section 106 for this proposal requires an area of agricultural land to be set aside for agricultural use creating a green buffer separating Rothley and Mount Sorrel. The Biodiversity Impact Assessment Version 2 (Aug 2025 ) submitted with the Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 appeal, suggest s that in combination , the on - site pr oposals toge ther with the off - site measures would result in a net gain of 12.4% habitat units and 20.06% hedgerow units. 57. The appellant has confirmed that a condi tion requiring a Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Management Plan for the Rothley site has b e en discharged by the Cou ncil . Th i s includes improvements not accounted for in the offsetting proposals put forward in this appeal. The parties have put forward a draft planning condi tion re quiring an updated B iodiversity I mpact A ssessment to provide a baseline for both the ap peal site and the Rothley site and a demo nstration of how BNG would be achieved. The section 106 agreement supports this approach and requires a Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy which makes provision for both on - site and off - site mitigation including if necessary, purchasing biodiversity units and or paying a n offsetting contribution . I understand that a habitat bank is now available in Charnwood. 58. Bringing all the above together, I am satisfied that an appropriate mitigation strategy can be achieved by a combination of on - site and off - site measures. T he F ramework states that off - site mitigation should be a last re so rt , certainly after other opportunities have been exhausted. If there was a masterplan for the wh o l e site it may be that on site mitigation could be achieved . It seems to me that this is the int ention of the Policy . However, that is not achievable given the context and circumstances of this appeal. Accordingly, I find that with the imposition of an appropriate condition together with the ob ligation set out in the section 106 agreement, mitigation for the loss of BNG would be achieved . T he proposal would comply with Local Plan Policy EV6 and Policy BuS1 of the Barrow upon Soar Neighbourhood Plan which seek to ensure that development does not harm local ecological features and habitats . Trees and Mitigation 59. As previously stated , there are two Tree Preservation O rders on the site . The first protects a group of li m e trees on the site frontage . In order to facilitate the site access f r o m Cotes Road, five of these trees would need to be felled . The second TPO relates to a black poplar which failed just be fore the start of the Inquiry. There was dispute between the app ellant and the C ou n cil as to whether this tree should be classed a s a ve teran tree. S i nce it has failed, this is no longer an issue, but it is agreed that its replacement is required as part of the development proposal . 60. The appe a l scheme proposes the removal of a total o f 4 1 t rees . Th is includes both in dividual t rees and groups of trees. The a ppellant ’ s Tree Survey indicates that th ree trees to be removed are Category B , of moderate quality, four are Category U , unsuitable to be retained, and the remainder are C ategory C , of low value . 61. The C ouncil considers that the appellant’s Tree Survey , whi lst following the recognised methodology in BS 5837, downgrades a number of the trees , resulting in a large number of Category C specimens. The Council point to inconsistences and fallacies in the schedule , which they argue raises the question of the reliability of the survey as a whole. 62. It is inevitable that a n y assessment will include a degree of professional judgment and this may differ between individuals . Assessment of defects and the longevity of a tree can be subjective. I bear in mind that t he tree survey is a tool to aid Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 design and should be used in making balanced judgments about development proposals. 63. The Council make the case that putting the BS5837 to one side, visual amenity, age, place , identity, biodiversity and economic value all have an influence on the value of a tree and should also be considered . I agree that these other factors should be considered in the round in the design of a proposal. 64. The lime trees on the site frontage, five of which are to be removed to facilitate the pr oposed access are identified as Category C trees, of low value. The Cou ncil considers these should be graded Category B due to their group value . These trees have be en maintained as pollards. I note the appellant ’ s ev idence shows they were pollarded i n 2008 and overtime , due to the lack of maint enance , have re grown developing canopies which now need to be repolla r ded. 65. Having looked at the guidance for categories in BS5837, I am of the view that a ca se could be made for either category . Ultimately it is a matter of judgment . It is not necessary for my decision to conclude on this , as the issue here is one of amenity value. The five lime trees to be removed are located at the southern end of the group . Whi l st a smaller row of limes would result , they would still have visual amenity value as a group in the street scene and would still provide a screen to the existing dwellings . 66. I acknowledge that an access t o the a ppeal site cou ld b e obtained through the adjacent Ashberry site , removing the need for a separate access and the resultant loss of the lime trees. I understand that Ashberry has indicated a willingness to facilitate a ranso m free access to other parcels of the allocation , though the specific details are unclear and the app ellant ha s not been approached. Whether this could be achieved or not is not relevant , as I must determine the acceptability of the scheme before me . 67. The appellant has drawn my attention to t he Ashberry m asterplan , which not only illustrates a vehicular connection to the appeal site but also shows a ped es t rian , cycle and emergency access from the app eal site on to Cotes Road. This proposal would still require the removal of some of the lime trees . The difference in terms of tree loss w ould be one or two trees. T he loss of TPO’d trees to provide the site access clearly results in harm. 68. The Framework in paragraph 136 recognise s the important contribution that trees make to the character a nd quality of urban environments and amongst other things states that exi sting trees should be ret ained where possible. Policy EV 7 of the Charnwood Local Plan supports this objectiv e. Some removal is clear ly unavoidable. Ultimately the issue of tree removal is one for reserved mat t er s stage when the final layout is put forward . Ther e are opportunities for replacement tree planting on the site and the application of Pol icy EV7 provide s some flexibility for replacements off site. This would be a matter for the Cou ncil to consider in the determination of the reserved ma t ter s scheme . 69. Policy EV7 goes on to state that the Council w ill support developments that provide new tree planting including replacing any removed trees with at least three new trees. The application of this policy would require the appeal scheme to include the plant ing of around 12 3 trees . The ap pellant has indicated that they are able to plant around 50 new trees on the site, comprising street trees, trees in gardens and through landscaping including supplementary planting on the site Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 boundaries . I t is further proposed to plant around 100 new trees on the compensation site at Rothley. 70. Policy EV7 in the supporting text indicates a sequential approach to replacement tree planting , firstly within the site , in the vicinity of the app ea l site and thirdly through a commuted sum for tree planting elsewhere in the Borough such as a local park or area of open space. T he planting of additional trees on the compensation s i te would be in line with this policy approach . 71. I have regard to the fact that the appeal scheme is in outline and landscaping forms a reserved matter . S hould the ap pea l be allowed, approp riate conditions could be imposed to require the identification of trees to be removed and retained and th ose to be planted and also to require an updated arboricultural assessment and T ree P rotection Plan r e flecting the final layout and design of the development pro posed . The assessment of this matter and the compliance with Local Plan policy , is one for the Council at reserved matters application stage. 72. Given the above, I find that subject to appropriate planning conditions , the proposed development would, as far as possible, protect and enhance the natural environment and that appropriate mitigation would be proposed in line with P olicy EV7. Drainage Strategy and Impact on nearby Local Wildlife site 73. The Council ’s fifth putative reason for refusal raises concern t hat the drainage st r a te gy for the pro pos ed development could have an adver se impact on surface water runoff and the existing hyd r o lo gy regime . Th is would ca use harm to the Railway F ields LWS and the adjacent Catsick Marsh LWS to the north west of the site. The main areas of concern relate to water levels and water quality. 74. The appellant has submitted a hydrology review and a further report in rebuttal to the Cou ncil ’s evidence which considers how surface water is provided to the LWS, the contribution o f the ap pea l site and the i mpact of the proposed drainage strategy . The ap p e a l scheme pro pos es an attenuation pond which would store and then slowly release flows so that the overall volume of water leaving the site would be no le ss than existing greenfield flows. 75. The ap pellant calculates that the overall catchment serving the LWS is around 41.7 hectares , of which , the appeal site is approximately 3.7 hectares , under 9%. 76. A small ditch running south west from Cotes Road and into a natural valley provides the vast majority of water flow to t he LWS . I observed this on my site visit . Whilst surface water and ground water flows f rom the a ppeal site will also contribute , the vast majority of flo w s are from within the wider catchment and not the app eal site . 77. In line with best practice, peak flows are to be attenuated preventing rapid runoff from flooding the LWS’s. In a 1 in 2 - year rainfall event, the peak flow has been calculated to result in an increase of 1.1%. This is minimal. N aturally there can be fluctuations in rainfall and seasonal changes to water levels, which the plant communities in the LWS tolerate . Given the above, I do not consider that th e estimated changes in water flows would result in harm . 78. In terms of water quality , further measures are proposed. These include permeable paving and a perman en t wet basin to the atten uation pond to provide Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 sedim e nt ation a nd filtration . In addi tion, a 1 2 - metre - long bank of stone filled gabion mattresses would be provided to create a flow diffuser through filt ration . In larger storm events , flood water would overtop the gab ions and sp read out into the wooded slopes which would provid e further filtration , plant uptake and sedimentation the re by improving water quality. A betterment can therefore be achieved. 79. In summary, on the basis of the evidence before me I am satisfied that the pro pose d drainage strategy would not cause harm to the LWS’s. The scheme would therefore comply with the F ramework objective of protecting and enhancing biodiversity , Policy EV6 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy BuS1 of the Neighbourhood Plan . Infrastructure Education 80. There are three primary schools within a two - mile radius of the appeal site. Only one, Hall Orchard C of E Primary School is within the statutory walking distance. 81. The Education Authority do not seek dismissal of the appeal on education grounds subject to the necessary financ ial contributions towards primary, secondary , post 16, special education needs and early years provision. The concern relates to the remaining parcels on HA49 and the potential future issue if collectively the number of dwellings within the allocation exceeds those planned in the Local Plan. 82. The Local Plan allocates five sites in Barrow upon Soar for residential development . As a result of a deficit in primary school provi sio n in the locality, the need for a new school was id en tified. A St ate ment of Common Ground between the Co uncil and the developer s and site promoters of the five sites was submitted to support the examination process. It was agreed that the arrange ment s to be put in p l ace for the timing and funding of a new one form entry (210 place) primary school to be p r o vi ded on HA48, l an d off Willow Road , w ould be set out in an Educ ation Delivery Strategy . 83. The difficulty that now arises is that t h e three planning applications currently pending on th ree of the five parcels in the allocation, seek planning p e r mission for around 260 dwellings. When the other two parcels A and C are considered, the total number of dwellings on the allocation is approximately 340, well above the 220 allocated. This means that cumulatively, taking all the allocations in Barrow upon Soar, around 932 dwellings could come forward, with a potential deficit of 15 pupil places. 84. The Education Authorities’ calculation of the likely pupil yield assumes that all the dwellings that come forward w ould be two bedrooms . However, Local Plan Policy H1 seeks a mix of house types to meet local needs in line with up - to - date evidence. Table 6 sets out a requirement for up to 10% one - bedroom market dwellings , between 10 - 20% of affordable home ownership dwellings and between 60 - 75% of affordable rent dwellings to be single bedroom. In reality, to comply with Policy H1, the development would include more single bed dwellings, thereby resulting in a lower child yield. The Education Authorities calculation clearly represents a worst - case scenario. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 85. I accept that the percentages of single bed dwellings stated in the policy may not be feasible or practicable on the appeal site. The Council at the Education Round Table session gave the example of the Bloor Homes scheme on site H48 , where 6.3% one bed dwellings have been agreed. Applying that figure to all the allocations in Barrow upon Soar, there would be no deficit in primary school places. T his does not take account of falling birth rates, home schooled children, those attending independent schools an d those children from outside Barrow upon on Soar who are displaced , which could free up more pupil places. 86. Given the above, I am satisfied based on the evidence before me, that taking account of existing school places and the proposed new school, there is likely to be adequate primary school provision in Barrow upon Soar to accommodate the increased number of d wellings on the allocation together with the other residential proposals in the village. Local Plan Policy INF1 w ould therefore be complied with , in that the infrastructure needed to mitigate the impacts of development would be secured. 87. Notwithstanding the above, as my assessment in this appeal is based on the information available at this time, it would be necessary that any future applications for development taking the number of dwellings on HA49 above the 220 dwellings allocated, be r equired to demonstrate that there remains sufficient capacity in existing and planned primary education provision. 88. A cont ribution from the appeal scheme to wards school transport is required in the event that pupils need to be taken elsewhere pe nding the completion of the new p rimary school. This is included within the section 106 obligation. Open Space 89. The Cou ncil raise concern about the location of the open space on the appeal site, that it is too close to the railway line with the potential for noise and to o c lose to the attenuation pond . In terms of noise, I note that the Cou ncil’s Environmental Health Officer raises no objection to the scheme subject to a mitigation stra tegy . Should the appe a l be allowed, a suitably worded condi tion could be imposed to require the submi ssion of an Acoustic D esign S tatement to provide mitigation for a n y noise issues. 90. With regard to the proximity of open space to the attenuation pond , t he scheme is cu r r en tly i n outline, and the precise position of the open space has not been determined. A ny safety measures that w ould need to be installed can be considered further at reserved ma t ters s tage. To ensu re th e required minimum amounts and typologies of public open space are provided on the site in line with Policy EV9 of the Lo cal Plan , a suitable planning condition can be imposed. Off Site Highway Improvements 91. Off - site highway improvements are required to the A60/Barrow Road junction and also the provision of footpath improvements along Cotes Road heading south from the appeal site towards the village. There remains a dispute between the appellant and the Highwa y Authority as to the most appropriate mechanism by which these works can be secured, either by condition or through a planning obligation. 92. In regard to the A60/Barro w Road improvements , a condi tion is pro pos ed to require the submission o f a scheme . This is in principle agreed by all parties. The Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 specific wording of the condition is s till a mat t er of dispute, and I address this later in my decision . 93. Turning to the footpath improvements , I noted on my site visit that there is no footway to the village on the western side of Cotes R oad until north of Barrowcliffe Close . Ther e is however a footpath on the other side of the road, but this would require users to cross the highway . No crossing facility is proposed in the ap pea l scheme, but I note that one is put forward within the Ashberry proposals . This of course has not been approved and cannot be relied upon. 94. I ac knowledge that the footpath improvements would benefit all the future occupants of the allocat ion as a whole and it could be argued that all developers should contribute towards its cost. In the absence of a crossing facility to r each the footpath on the opposite side of Cotes Road , I take the view that the improvements are necessary to make the ap peal scheme acc e p table in planning terms and to promote a ct ive travel in line with the objective s of the F ramework and Local Plan P olicy INF2 . During the Inquiry, the ap pellant agreed to fund the full extent of the se footpath improvements . 95. The Highway Authority consider a condition should be imposed to secure the implementation of the se works. The a p pellant however favours a planning obligation and has drafted a Unilateral Undertaking which secures a financial contribution to deliver the scheme . I am aware that the Highway Authority i s concern ed that the costs o f design and implementation may exceed the contribution and that they will then be a t risk financially . This can however be resolved through the s . 278 agreement under the Highways Act . I find that a planning obligation is appropriate in these circumstances. A condition is also proposed to require the works be completed before occupation of any dwellings . This provides further certainty around its implementation. 96. The Unilateral Undertaking also includes an obligation in respect o f the implementation of site frontage footpath works to be completed before first occupation of any of the dwellings. This is necessary to ensure a continuous route for footpath users. . 97. Given the above, I am satisfied that the required off site highway improvements can be appropriately secured. The appe a l scheme therefore complies with the Framework and Local Plan Polic ies DS4 and INF2 which require developments to provide safe and suitable access for all users. O ther Matters 98. Po licy H6 of the L ocal P l an supports custom and self - build homes. In development s of more than 250 dwellings , the policy requires at last five serviced plots be provided. Should HA49 proceed and p rovide in excess of the 220 dwellings allocated, possibly up to around 350 dwellings , this p olicy would be en gaged. 99. However, t he parties agree that in respect of the ap peal pro posal, t her e is no requirement for the development provide self - build or custom build h ome s. I agree with this view. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 Planning Obligation 100. As I have already outlined above, t he appellant has submitted a completed section 106 agreement and a separate Unilateral Undertaking. 101. The section 106 agreement makes provision for obligations relating to a range of ma t ters. These include affordable housing and requirements for a highway connection from the appeal site to adjoining land to prevent a ransom situation. The agreement also requires a B iodiversity Mitigation S trategy and makes provi si on for on - site and off - site mitigation , the purchase of biodiversity units from a registered off - site biodiversity gain site and or the payment of an offsetting contribution. Provis ion is also mad e for f inancial contributions towards open space and outdoor sport, allotments, health, early years, primary, secondary, SEND and post 16 education , school transport , libraries, bus passes , travel packs and monitoring costs. 102. An additional obligation is a financial contribution to the Parish Council towards the cost of a new community centre in Barrow upon Soar . This facility is required tak ing account of the additional need arising from the cumulative growth in the village due to development put forward in the Local Plan. 103. T he Unilateral Undertaking is made by the appellant to the County Council to secure a financial contribution towards the cost of the off site f ootpath work s and to implement the site frontage footpath works . 104. I am satisfied that the above obligations meet the tests in the Framework and regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (as amended). They are needed to make the development acceptable in planning terms; are directly relate d to the development; and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind . I have therefore taken them into account in my decision. Planning Bal ance 105. The appeal proposal is located on an allo cated site within th e adopted Charnwood Local Plan . The principle of re sidential development on the site has been established . The site lies in a sustainable location with good access to services and facilities within the village. The pr oposal complies with Policy DS1 which sets out the development strategy for the Borough . 106. Allocation Policy DS2(HA4 9) has two parts. Firstly, it requires six criteria to be met then goes on to require a masterplan and dev elopment brief. 107. In regard to the first criteri on , I have determined that the scheme would ensure that surface water runoff would not detrimentally affect the LWS’s and would locate the SUDS feature at a sufficient distance away from them. In terms of the second criterion , t he appli cation is accompanied by a biodiv er s i ty and drainage strategy that demonstrates how the se issues are to be addressed. 108. Turning to the third and fourth criteria, the relationship to the cemetery and the need for a Design and Access Statement to set out how the development would mai ntain and enhance the significance of the heritage assets and their setting , th ese are not directly relevant to the appeal scheme due to its dis tance f rom this facility . Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 109. The f ifth criterion requires t he proposal is accompanied by a flood ri sk assessment wh ich has been provided . T he sixth criterion seeks a contribution to the provi si on of a new primary school which is secured through the planning obligation. 110. In summary , I am satisfied that the ap peal scheme complies with all six criteria in the first part of Policy DS2(HA49) as far as they are relevant to the appeal case. 111. With regard the second part of the Policy, I have discussed in detail issues regarding the c oncept m as t er plan and the dev elopment brief and found that the ap peal submission is appropriate at this stage . I t would secure a comprehensive development, deal with phasing and delivery, and adequately address the impacts . 112. I acknowledge that there is conflict with this part of Policy DS2 because the masterplan has n o t b e en agreed by all parties . Howe ver h aving regard to the circumst ances of this ap peal and the land ownership constraints , I take a pragmatic approach. T he submitted mas te rplan and development brief are living documents , later ap plications on other parcels of the allo cation can provide further iterations of the se doc uments taking account of more detailed information available . The c oncept m asterplan and d evelopment brief comply with the policy read as a whole . They also comply with Policy DS4 and Barrow upon Soar Neighbourhood Plan Policy B uS4 , as a high - quality design can be achieved. 113. Policy EV1 of the Local Plan protects the landscape character of the Borough and seeks to enhance it. Ther e will clearly be some landscape harm as a result o f the development b ut due to the containment of the site and the provi si on o f existing and proposed planting , this would be highly localised. Bearing in mind the site forms an allocation in the Lo cal Plan , the weight given to this harm is limited. 114. I have found that the proposal complie s with Policies EV6 of the Local Plan and Policy BuS1 of the Neighbourhood Plan in re la tion to biodiversity and Policy EV7 regarding trees . This is subject to the imposi tion of appropriate conditions and the requirements of the planning oblig ation to secure on site and off site BNG . The loss of TPO’d trees to facilitate the site access causes harm . Whilst this weighs against the pro posal , it is tempered by the fact that the access in this location protects the traditional orchard, a high distinctiveness habitat . 115. Furthermore, the prop osal complies with Policy EV9 in that it would provide a suitable amount and type of public open space , subject to appropriate conditions and the section 106 agreement . In ter ms of infrastructure pro v i si on, in particular education and off - site highway improvements , I have found the scheme is acceptable and complies with P o l i cy I N F1. 116. With regard to housing delivery a n d supply, t he Cou ncil can demonstrate a 5.01 - year s supply of deliverable housing land . I agree with the ap pellant that this is marginal, but it is still over the five years required by national planning policy . 117. The G overnment has delayed the publication of the 2024 H ousing D elivery Test (HDT) but has publ ished the raw data. The ap pellant argues that based on their calculations, this data engages the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the til ted balance . 118. However, paragraph 80 of the Framework is clear that the HDT consequences apply the day after the annual publ ication of the test results. As this has n ot occurred, I must have regard to the 2023 results . T he tilted bal ance does not Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 therefore apply. I acknowledge though that the data suggests a worsening picture in the Borough and forms a material consider ation . The contribution of the appeal proposal bo th t o m arke t and affo rdable h ousing weigh in favour of the appe a l. 119. I have considered whether allowing the appeal would prejudice the delivery of the re mainder o f the allo ca tion. The app ea l site forms the southernmost parcel, and it does not rely on a n y other parcel co ming for ward for it to be developed. Furthermore, the scheme can appropriately mitigate its own impacts. I am satisfied that the submitted c oncept m asterplan and the d evelopment b rief w ould provide the basis for a comprehensive sust ainable development for the whole allocation , which can evolve as the other parcels come forward . Therefore, I am satisfied that allowing the appeal would not prejudice the delivery of the wider allo cation, securing much needed market and affordable homes in the Borough . 120. In summary , I find that having regard to the minimal harms identified, the app ea l prop osal complies with t he relevant policies of the d e vel o p ment plan when read as a whole . The material considerations in this case do not indicate that the scheme should be determined other than in accordance with it. Th e appe a l should therefore be allowed. Conditions 121. The Council and the appellant agreed a set of conditions that were discussed at the I nquiry. I have considered all the conditions in light of the advice within the Framework, and I have revised some of them to avoid duplication or in the interests of clarity and enforceability. 122. It is necessary to impose conditions setting out time limits for development and the submission of reserved matters. (conditions 1 and 2). 123. Condition 3 which relates to the approved plans, the masterplan and development brief is in dispute between the parties. I agree with the parties that the appeal scheme should accord with the Key Site Wide Design principles in Rev E of the d evelopment b rief and be in broad accordance with the remainder of its content. 124. The parties disagree on whether the proposal should be in broad accordance with the Illustrative Site Layout . Whilst layout is a reserved mat t er and not to be approved at this outline stage, this plan has been the subject of much scrutiny during the appeal. It provides an illustration of how the Site Wide Design Principles could be applied. It is unlikely that a very different scheme could be forthcoming taking account of the position of the access, which is to be approved at this outline stage, the need to connect to Parcel D and the most suitable location for the atten ua tion pond on the lowest part of the site . I do not therefore consider it necessary to require that the reserved matters scheme be in broad accordance with the Illustrative Site Layout. 125. In the interest of protecting the character of the landscape and the amenity of new residents, condition s are necessary to seek details of ground levels and finished floor levels as well as boundary treatment s and any retaining structures (conditions 4 and 6). Condition 5 is required to secure th e submission of an approp riate landscaping scheme at reserved matter s stage. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 126. To ensure the protection of existing tree s and hedgerows, condition 7 requires an updated Arboriculture Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Statement at reserved matters stage. 127. Condition 8 which relates to the protection of existing trees and hedgerow is in dispute between the parties . As landscaping forms a reserved matter, it is not necessary to impose a condition retaining all trees on the site , with the exception of those to be removed for the site access , unless otherwise agreed by the Council. It is however approp riate and necessary to impose a condition protect ing all trees identified to be retained in the submitted tree survey , and secure their replacement should they die, be damaged or diseased within five years of scheme completion. 128. Condition 9 is necessary to secure an appropriate scheme of open space for future residents. As part of a reserved matters application, schemes illustrating the housing mix, accessible and adaptable homes and adherence to the nationally Described Space Standards are necessary . This is to ensure the development is of an appropriate standard and complies with Local Plan Policies H1, H2 and H3. ( conditions 10, 11 and 12). 129. In the interests of biodiversity and ecology, condition 13 requires an updated Biodiversity Impact Assessment as part of the reserved matters submission and c ondition 14 is necessary to require an updated ecological assessment . For the same reason , condition 15 requires details of a compensatory barn owl nesting box and condition 16 requires a pre commencement survey for badgers. Further conditions are necessary to secure a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan, and a scheme for bat and bird boxes (conditi ons 20 and 22) . 130. Condition 17 is necessary to require an A coustic Design S tatement to protect future occupiers from noise from the railway line and other sources. To safeguard future users of the site from land contamination, conditions are required to secure site investigations, remediation and verification and to address any unforeseen contamination that may arise during the development (Conditions 18 and 19) . 131. A Construction Environmental Management Plan is necessary to minimise the environmental impacts of construction on local amenity, biodiversity and the surrounding area (Condition 21). 132. In the interests of highway safety , condition 23 requires the access arrangements including frontage footway to be provided before the dwellings are occupied. For the same reason Condition 24 is necessary to secure the off - site highway works. 133. The intentions around the existing dwelling No . 83 Cotes Road are unclear, whether it is to be retained as a separate unit and if it is, whether the existing access is to be retained. Condition 25 is necessary to seek confirmation of what is proposed and permanently stop up the existing access if that is subsequently proposed for highway safety reasons . 134. C ondition 26 require s a scheme of off - site highway improvement works at the A60/Barrow road junction to be agreed and implement ed . The wording of the condition is in dispute, in particular whether it is necessary to state that notwithstanding the plan included in the Transport A ssessment , a new highway improvement scheme should be submitted and agreed . The pl an shown in the T ransport Assessment is an image of a signalised mitigation arrangement which Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 20 forms part of the Bloor Homes a ppl i c ation , ref P22/1254 / 2. Whilst this plan has not been submitted as part of this appe a l, it is referred to in evidence. In the interests of clarity, I consider it is necessary and appropriate to refer to this plan in the condition . 135. Condition 27 is necessary to seek a travel p lan promoting sustainable travel. 136. A series of conditions are necessary to ensure a suitable surface water drainage scheme, to manage surface water during construction, safeguard rail infrastructure, and ensure the drainage scheme is maintained (Conditions 28, 29, 30, 31). The Council sugg ested a further condition relating to the management of surface water during construction. I do not impose this as it duplicate s other conditions. 137. A condition to require a sustainability strategy is necessary to ensure sustainable construction principle s are applied in accordance with Policy CC4 of the L ocal P lan. I impose the appellant ’s suggested wording as it is more concisely worded and still meets the objective of the policy. 138. Finally, I impose condition 33 to ensure that a bespoke compensation strategy is provide d for the irreplaceable habitat provided by the black poplar tree in the centre of the site which has failed. 139. I do not impose a condition requested by the Council for a Boundary Green Infrastructure Protection Plan including a minimum 5 metre separation distance between all residential plots and each retained hedgerow , tree , woodland and orchard feature. I have been provided with insufficient evidence to justify this condition and explain its necessity , in particularly the separation distance. Whilst I appreciate the desire to protect boundary landscaping, this can be achieved though consideration of the site layou t and the landscaping scheme to be submitted at reserved ma t ters stage . C onclusio n 140. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I allow this app eal. Helen Hockenhull INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 21 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Paul T ucker KC and Constanze Bell , Instructed by Louise Ward, Head of Counsel Planning, William Davis Homes Ltd They called Ben Hunter BA DipMS Associate Director, Education Facilities Management David Kemp BA (Hons), Urban Design Associate Director, Dual MArch, MRTPI Marrons Planning Ltd Richard Hall BA(Hons) DipUP MAUD MRTPI Managing Director, Planning and Design (UK) Ltd Tony Goddard BEng(Hons) CEng MICE Director, BSP Consulting Steven Webber BSc (Hons) CEcol MCIEEM Associate Director, RammSanderson Ecology Peter Wharton BSc(Hons) FArborA MICFor Director and Principal Arboriculture Consultant, Wharton Natural Infrastructure Consultants Ben Cook BSc MSc MRTPI Associate Director, Savills (UK) ltd Karen Howard Par t ner, Gateleys Solicitors (s.106 session only) FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY : Daniel Henderson , Counsel Instructed by Kathryn Harrison, Principal Solicitor, Charnwood Borough Council He called : Liam Ward MSc MRTPI P rincipal Planning Officer, CBC Rupert Simms MSc ACIEEM Principal Ecologist, CBC Dr Stefan Kruczkowski BA (Hons) Dip TP Urban Design Consultant Dominic Waller BSc PGDip MArborA Senior Tree Officer, CBC Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 22 Leicestershire County Council (LCC) – Rule 6 Party Douglas Edwards KC , Counsel Instructed by Oliver Meek Interim Head of Planning, Historic and Natural Environment, Leicestershire County Council He called: Sharon Townsend BA(Hons) School Place Planning Officer Adrian Whiteman BEng (Hons) MCIHT Principal Transport Planner St . Philips Land L imited - Rule 6 Party Peter Goatley KC , Counsel Instructed by Tobin Byers, Counsel for Lichfield’s He called: James de Havilland BSc (Hons) MRTPI Urban Design Director, Stantec Other Interested Parties Christine James Barrow upon Soar Parish Council Tracey Filsell Local resident Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 23 DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE INQUIRY I D 1 Appellant’s Opening Submission ID2 LPA Opening Submissions ID3 St . Philips Opening Submissions ID4 LCC Opening Submissions ID5 Drone photograph of Tree G36 - Feb 2026 1 ID6 Drone photograph of Tree G36 - Feb 2026 2 ID7 Drone photograph of Tree G36 - Feb 2026 3 ID8 Draft a greement p ursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ID8a D raft S106 Agreement as proposed to be revised - March 2026 ID9 Draft Unilateral Undertaking Pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ID9a Draft Unilateral Undertaking – revised - March 2026 ID10 Historic Environment Desk B ased Assessment Part 1 by Landgage Heritage ID11 Historic Environment Desk Based Assessment Part 2 by Landgage Heritage ID12 Site Access & Frontage Delivery drawing ID13 Proposed Off Site Footway Delivery drawing ID14 Tree Retention & Removal Plan – Access Only ID15 Hydrology Roundtable Agenda ID16 Hydrology Roundtable Report by BSP consulting, 3 March 2026 ID17 BSI Standard - BS5837 - 2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction ID18 BNG Metric v4 March 2026 ID19 Arboriculture Roundtable Agenda ID20 Draft c onditions v10 ID21 Draft co nditions v11 ID22 SoCG CBC and Appellant v14 signed ID23 SoCG Arboriculture and Ecology – V6 ID24 SoCG Ecology – V7 signed ID25 SoCG Arboriculture – V2 signed ID26 CBC List of appearances Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 24 ID27 Appellant List of appearances ID28 LCC List of appearances ID29 (Not Used) ID30 Inquiry Timetable – March 2026 ID31 Final Draft Planning Conditions ID32 Closing Submissions - Leicestershire County Council ID33 Closing Submissions - Appellant ID34 Closing Submissions – St . Phillips ID35 Closing Submissions - Charnwood Borough Council ID36 S106 Planning Agreement – Final draft version before signature DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AFTER THE INQUIRY ID37 Final completed and signed section 106 agreement dated 11 May 2026 ID38 Final signed Unilateral Undertaking dated 11 May 2026 Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 25 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission and the development hereby permitted shall take place not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. 2) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale , "the reserved matters" shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved. 3) Unless where required or allowed by other conditions attached to this permission, the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following plan and d ocument: • Site Location Plan - 21.041/04 A • ‘Key Site Wide Design Principles’ from Development Brief Rev E a nd in broad accordance with: • the remaining content of Development Brief Rev E 4) The details submitted pursuant to condition 2 shall include full details of existing and proposed ground levels and finished floor levels of all buildings relative to the proposed ground levels. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 5) The layout and landscaping details submitted pursuant to condition 2 shall include: a) the treatment proposed for all ground surfaces, including hard surfaced areas; b) planting schedules across the site, noting the species, sizes, numbers and densities of plants and trees ; c) finished levels or contours within any landscaped areas; d) any structures to be erected or constructed within any landscaped areas including play equipment, street furniture and means of enclosure ; e) functional services above and below ground within landscaped areas ; and f) all existing trees, hedges and other landscape features indicating clearly a ny to be removed. 6) The details submitted pursuant to condition 2 shall include details of: a) a ll proposed boundary treatments, including fencing, walls, and planting; and b) e xisting and proposed site levels, including finished floor levels of buildings and the design, height, and materials of any retaining structures required to facilitate changes in level. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 26 7) The reserved matters application(s) shall include an updated Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan, and Arboricultural Method Statement, reflecting the final layout and design of the development. These documents shall demonstrate how retai ned trees and hedgerows will be protected and managed throughout the construction process and shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority as part of the reserved matters submission. No development, including site clearance or preparatory works, shall commence until the approved tree protection measures have been implemented in full. The protection measures shall be retained and maintained for the duration of the construction period. 8) Any tree or hedge to be retained within the application site boundary (as shown on Indicative Layout and Preliminary Tree Protection Plan (Ref: JH - TPP Dated May 2025, as shown at Appendix C of the submitted AIA Report Ref: JH0525COTESRD Dated May 2025 or a ny subsequent plan as approved under condition 8) shall be maintained at all times. Any tree or hedge dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased during construction or within five years of completion shall be replaced within the next pla nting season with specimens to be agreed in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. 9) The details submitted pursuant to condition 2 shall include the following minimum amounts and typologies of open space: • Parks & Amenity space (minimum 0.24 ha) • Natural & semi - natural open space (minimum 0.34 ha) • A LEAP facility and an equipped young people’s facility (minimum combined area 0.04 ha) 10) The details to be submitted pursuant to condition 2 shall include a housing size (number of bedrooms) mix for market and affordable homes that reflects up to date evidence of housing need in the Borough. 11) As part of any r eserved m atters application relating to layout and housing mix, a schedule shall be submitted identifying the plots, and the house types that will be constructed to meet the requirements of Building Regulations Approved Document M, Volume 1, Requirement M4(2) (acce ssible and adaptable dwellings). The schedule shall demonstrate that no less than 10% of the total number of dwellings will be constructed to meet M4(2) standards. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule . 12) The details to be submitted pursuant to Condition 2 shall demonstrate that all residential units comply with the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS). Where any deviation from the NDSS is proposed, the submitted details shall include clear and robust justification demonstrating how the scheme continues to achieve an appropriate standard of internal living space consistent with the intent of Local Plan Policy H3. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 27 13) The reserved matters application(s) shall be accompanied by an updated Biodiversity Impact Assessment (BIA), prepared in accordance with the most recent version of the DEFRA Biodiversity Metric. The BIA shall: a) e stablish the baseline biodiversity value of the application site; b) w here off - site biodiversity gain is proposed, establish both the baseline and projected post - intervention biodiversity value of both any on site provision and that provided by the off - site location; c) d emonstrate how the development will achieve biodiversity net gain, including details of habitat creation, enhancement, and long - term management both on - site and off - site. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved BIA and any associated biodiversity gain measures. 14) The reserved matters application shall be accompanied by an updated ecological assessment, prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist, to reflect the final layout and current site conditions. The assessment shall address the recommendations and mitigation proposals set out in the Ramm Sanderson report on “Aerial Tree Climbing Inspections for Roosting Bats and Barn Owl” (dated 3rd July 2025 ), and shall include updated species surveys where necessary. It shall set out appropriate and proportionate mitigation, enhancement, and management measures to ensure the protection and conservation of protected and priority species. 15) The updated ecological assessment submitted pursuant to Condition 1 4 shall include details of a compensatory barn owl nesting box, including its specification, exact location on a retained tree or suitable pole, and confirmation that the location minimises disturbance, with installation carried out in accordance with up to date best practice guidance published by the Barn Owl Trust (or equivalent recognised guidance). The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved ecological recommendations and the barn owl nesting provision, which shall be installed prior to first occupation of any dwelling. 16) No development shall commence, including any site clearance or preparatory works, until a pre - commencement survey for badger activity has been undertaken and the findings submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The survey shall be carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist no more than three months prior to the commencement of development. If active badger setts or signs of activity are identified, a mitigation strategy shall also be submitted and ap proved, and the developme nt shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved mitigation measures. 17) As part of any r eserved m atters application relating to layout or design, an Acoustic Design Statement (ADS) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The ADS shall incorporate and respond to the recommendations set out in Section 5 of the Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Omnia (Ref: C10942/NCA/1.0, dated May 2023). Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 28 The ADS shall demonstrate how noise impacts from existing and proposed sources have been assessed, mitigated, and minimised through site layout, building orientation, and design measures. It shall confirm that significant adverse effects will be avoided an d that the development will achieve appropriate internal and external noise levels in accordance with BS 8233:2014. The ADS shall include plot - by - plot details of necessary screening, glazing, and ventilation specifications to ensure compliance with acoustic standards within habitable rooms and shall identify mitigation measures for external amenity areas. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the approved ADS. 18) As part of any r eserved m atters application, a Phase II site investigation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The investigation shall be informed by and respond to the findings and recommendations set out in the Phase I Study Report prepared by GeoDyne (Ref: D41047, dated 12/04/21). The Phase II investigation shall assess the nature and extent of any land contamination on the site, including a risk assessment specific to the proposed development. The report shall be prepared in accordance with a methodology agreed with the l ocal p lanning a uthority and shall include a scheme of necessary remediation measures identified as required to make the site suitable for its intended use. The scheme shall include details of proposed remediation measures, implementation timescales, and verification procedures. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved remediation scheme. 19) If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended until: a) additional measures for the remediation of the site have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and b) a verification report for all the remediation works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Occupation of the site shall not commence until the approved remediation scheme verification report has been approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. 20) A detailed Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority, in consultation with Network Rail, following the approval of the first reserved matters application/s pursuant to ‘layout’ and ‘landscaping’, but prior to the commencement of development. The LEMP shall accord with the approved landscaping detail s and shall include long - term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all public open spaces, ecological mitigation areas and surface water drainage systems. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved LEMP. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 29 21) No development shall commence, including any site clearance or preparatory works, until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The CEMP shall include, but not be limited to, details (including timing for their provision) of: • c onstruction working hours; • s ite access and haul routes; • m easures to control noise, dust, vibration, and light spill; • p ollution prevention and spill response procedures; • p rotection of retained trees, hedgerows, and habitats; • w aste management and recycling; • s ite compound and material storage arrangements; • c ommunication strategy with local residents; • r oles and responsibilities for environmental management; • d etails of the routing of construction traffic; • w heel cleansing facilities; • v ehicle parking facilities, and • m easures to protect and manage Public Right of Way Footpath I15 during construction The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP. 22) Any application for approval of reserved matters shall include full details of a scheme for the location of bat and bird boxes, to be integrated into buildings. Thereafter and prior to the first use or occupation of any building with a bat or bird box, the bat and bird boxes shall be installed on that building in accordance with the approved details. 23) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until such time as the access arrangements and visibility splays shown on Proposed Access Arrangement (Drawing CRBS - BSP - XX - XX - D - H - 001 Rev. P05) and Proposed William Davis Site Access and Frontag e Footway Delivery (Drawing CRBS - BSP - XX - XX - D - H - 003 Rev. P04) have been carried out and completed in full. 24) No part of the development shall be occupied until such time as the offsite works shown on the Drawing CRBS - BSP - XX - XX - D - H - 004 Rev. P03 has been carried out and completed in full. 25) Pursuant to Condition 2, with the first application for approval of r eserved m atters, the applicant shall provide to the l ocal p lanning a uthority a written statement confirming: a) whether the dwelling known as 83 Cotes Road is to be retained as a separate planning unit; and b) if so retained, whether access to that dwelling is to continue to be taken solely from its existing means of access onto Cotes Road. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 30 In the event that the applicant confirms either that: i. 83 Cotes Road is not to be retained as a separate dwelling; or ii. 83 Cotes Road is to be retained but its access is to be derived in whole or in part from the internal access arrangements serving the development hereby permitted, then the existing means of access from Cotes Road serving 83 Cotes Road shall be permanently stopped up and closed. Details of the method, design and timing of the closure shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The approved closure shall thereafter be implemented within one calendar month of the new site access shown on Drawing CRBS - BSP - XX - XX - D - H - 001 Rev. P05 first being brought into use. 26) Notwithstanding the submitted details shown in ADC drawing ADC2254 - DR006 - P8, ‘A60 / Barrow Road Improvement’, as shown within Image 7.1 of the BSP Consulting Transport Assessment (reference CRBS - BSP - ZZ - XX - RP - H - 0003_Transport_Assessment), no part of the de velopment shall be occupied until such time as the details of a highway improvement scheme at the A60 / Barrow Road junction have been submitted and agreed in writing with the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The scheme will be implemented in full in accordance w ith a timetable to be agreed with the l ocal p lanning a uthority. 27) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be first occupied until a framework Travel Plan which sets out actions and measures with quantifiable outputs and outcome targets has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. Thereafter the agreed Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 28) Details submitted under condition 2 above shall be include a surface water drainage scheme. The submitted details shall be broadly in accordance with the recommendations of the submitted Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy (BSP Consulting CRBS - BSP - ZZ - XX - RP - C - 0001 - P04 dated 26/03/25) and shall include: a) c onfirmation that the attenuation pond will be constructed a minimum of 30 metres from the railway boundary; b) c onstruction specifications for the attenuation pond, hydro brake and gabion outfall, including a series of cross sections clearly illustrating existing site levels and proposed finished levels following completion of the engineering works; c) a landscaping scheme for the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the railway, to be planted prior to first occupation of the development; d) l andscaping and boundary treatment details for the pumping station and for the attenuation basin and its embankments; and e) a n assessment of the hydrological and ecological impacts upon the Railway Fields Local Wildlife Site The development must be carried out in accordance with the approved details, following consultation with Network Rail. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to first occupation of the development. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 31 29) Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Surface Water Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority, in consultation with Network Rail. The plan shall: a) i dentify potential risks of increased surface water runoff during the construction phase. b) s et out mitigation measures to manage those risks. c) i nclude arrangements for Network Rail to review and comment on the plan. In addition, Network Rail shall be granted access through the site at all times during construction and operation to inspect and maintain boundary fencing and other lineside features. Details of access arrangements shall be agreed with the l ocal p lanning a uthority prior to commencement. 30) No occupation of the development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as details in relation to the long - term maintenance of the surface water drainage system within the development have been submitted to and approved in wr iting by the l ocal p lanning a uthority, in consultation with Network Rail. The surface water drainage system shall then be maintained in accordance with these approved details in perpetuity. 31) No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as infiltration testing has been carried out (or suitable evidence to preclude testing) to confirm or otherwise, the suitability of the site for the use of infiltration as a drainage element, and h a s been submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority, in consultation with Network Rail. 32) The details submitted pursuant to Condition 2 shall include a Sustainability Strategy for the development hereby approved. The Strategy shall demonstrate how sustainable design and construction principles have been incorporated into the design, layout and delivery of the development and shall include, as a minimum, an assessment of the proposed development against each of the requirements of Local Plan Policy CC4 (Sustainable Construction). 33) No development (including site clearance, preparatory works, or any operations connected with the development hereby permitted) shall commence until bespoke compensation for the irreplaceable habitat represented by tree group G36 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The scheme shall: a) provide a bespoke compensation strategy, proportionate to the nature and scale of the impact of the loss of the habitat at tree G36, and consistent with national guidance for irreplaceable habitats. b) Include: • long term habitat management; • monitoring and reporting; Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 32 • the mechanism for securing delivery The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the approved scheme, and the approved compensation measures shall be retained, managed and monitored for the duration specified within the approved strategy.
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3376171 (Leeds City Council) — 2026-05-22
📍 Leeds City Council LPA code: E08000035 PINS reference: 3376171 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Hearing held on 18 March 2026 Site visit made on 19 March 2026 by Elaine Moulton BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 Land Off Newton Lane, Ledston WF10 2AW • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Harmony LS Limited against the decision of Leeds City Council. • The application Ref is 24/05828/FU. • The development proposed is Battery Energy Storage Facility and associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Battery Energy Storage Facility and associated works at Land Off Newton Lan e , Ledston WF10 2AW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/05828/FU, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development is taken from the planning application form . I have , however, omitted ‘ Resubmission ’ as it does not describe an act of development . 3. T he Council has indicated in the final Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) , submitted prior to the Hearing, that it now considers that the proposal i s not inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that its first reason for refusal no longer stands. However, as there are objections from interested parties on this matter , I consider that it is necessary to address it as a main issue. 4. The appellant submitted a revised Fire Water Management Plan to the Council following its decision and has provided a response to the comments of West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service (WYFRS) on that document . I acknowledge the complaints that th e Council were late in publishing this information , however, additional time h as been given for interested parties to comment . I am , therefore, satisfied that no one will be prejudiced if I take such evidence into consideration in my decision. 5. The main parties agree that the appeal site lies within the setting of several listed buildings . Although not forming part of the Council’s reason for refusal, I have a statutory duty under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving such buildings or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. It is therefore necessary to consider this matter as a main issue. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Main Issues 6. The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt ; • Whether there is sufficient information to demonstrate that there would be adequate mitigation to reduce the risk of fire, en sure public safety and avoid environmental damage; • The effect of the proposal on the setting of nearby listed buildings; and • Whether other considerations clearly outweigh any harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to amount to very special circumstances. Reasons Whether inappropriate development 7. The appeal site lies within the Green Belt . It comprises part of a field to the north of Newton Lane and to the east of Barnsdale Road and lies close to the development limits of Allerton Bywater . 8. T he Framework, at paragraph 142, identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban spraw l by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are thei r openness and their permanence . 9. At paragraph 153, the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. D evelopment in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within identified exceptions set out at Framework paragraph s 154 and 155. Paragraph 155 provides that development of homes , commerc ial and other development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where criteria a) to d) apply . 10. Policy N33 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review – 2006) (UDP), adopted 19 July 2006, predates the introduction of the concept of grey belt and the exception set out at paragraph 155 . Consequently , i t is more restrictive than, and therefore not fully consistent with, the Framework. As such, being mindful that weight should be afforded to development plan policies based on their degree of consistency with the Framework, I have afforded greater weight to the Framework in assessing whether the proposal would be inappropriate within the Green Belt. Paragraph 155 - Criterion (a) 11. Criterion ( a) is that the development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. The definition of ‘grey belt’ is set out at Annex 2 of the Framework as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b) or (d) in paragraph 143. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 12. The Planning Practice Guidance ( PPG ) sets out how the contribution land makes to the relevant Green Belt purpose should be assessed 1 . I t states that when addressing purpose (a), to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built - up areas, villages should not be considered as large built - up areas . It also states that purpose s ( b) , to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another , and ( d), to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns , relates to the merging of towns and not villages . 13. The appeal site is between Allerton Bywater and Ledston. Although it is agreed by all parties that Ledston is a village, interested parties disagree with the Council and the appellant about Allerton Bywater , contending that in combination with Great Preston it is a town by virtue of its population and facilities . I note, however, that the UDP defines Allerton Bywater as a village . I acknowledge that the UDP was adopted almost 20 years ago , n onetheless, my observations on my visit do no t suggest that it has developed in the intervening period to the extent that it sh ould now be regarded as a town . 14. Consequently, in accordance with the PPG , the appeal site cannot make a strong contribution to Green Belt purpos es ( a), ( b) or ( d) as it lies between two village s . The relationship of the site to Kippax, which is defined as a town in the development plan, does not alter my finding in this regard , given th at Allerton Bywater and Ledston are the nearer settlement s between which the appeal site lies . 15. The appeal site forms part of the designated Ledsham and Ledston Special Landscape Area and is within the risk impact zone of the Fairburn and Newton Ings Reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Even so, the site does not fall within any of the areas or assets set out in footnote 7 of the Framework (other than Green Belt ) and is not , therefore, excluded from being grey belt by virtue of footnote 7. 16. I th us find, for the foregoing reasons, that the appeal site is grey belt land as it falls within the definition set out in the Framework. N ever theless, a judgement must be made as to whether the proposal would fundamentally undermine the purposes ( taken together ) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. 17. The proposal would be sited close to Ledston Substation and to Allerton Bywater Business Park in a location where there are overhead powerlines. N ever theless, a s it w ould introduce a range of industrial plant into an area of countryside which is currently devoid of built form, I find that it would conflict with Green Belt purpose 143c), to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. 18. T he proposal requires a specific location where a grid connection is possible . T he appellant has sought to demonstrate , in an Alternative Site Assessment (ASA) , that there are no suitable and available alternative sites where connection to any o f the substations within the development plan are a can be achieved . I n the absence of anything to demonstrate that the conclusions of the ASA are unreliable, and as no unconsidered site has been presented , I have no reason to con clude that an alternative, and less harmful, site exists. 1 PPG Green Belts - Paragraph: 00 5 Reference ID: 64 - 006 - 20250225 Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 19. Therefore, although the proposal would be sited on a field within the rural area, it would not undermine purpose (e) , to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land . 20. Although I have found that the proposal would conflict with Green Belt purpose (c) , given my findings on purposes (a), (b) , (d) and (e) , and having regard to the extent of the site, which is a very small proportion of th e Green Belt across the area of the plan, I find that the proposal cannot reasonably be said to fundamentally undermine all of the Green Belt purposes taken together. 21. For the reasons set out above, I find that criteri on ( a) of the paragraph 155 exception applies to this case . Paragraph 155 - Criterion (b) 22. Criteri on ( b ) requires there to be a demonstrable unmet need for the proposed development . The PPG outlines that electricity storage can enable us to use energy more flexibly and de - carbonise our energy system cost - effectively, for example, by helping to balance the system at lower cost, maximising the usable output from intermittent low carbon generation (e.g. solar and wind), and deferring or avoiding the need for costly network upgrades and new generation capacity 2 . The PPG therefore categorises Battery Energy Storage System ( BESS ) facilities as ‘renewable and low carbon energy’. 23. The Government has well publicised net zero ambitions and targets and, I note that the Council declared a climate change emergency in 20 19 . The proposed development would store surplus electricity resulting from periods where the electricity network is effectively over supplied by existing energy generating sources, both renewable and non - renewable. Such energy, which would otherwise be wast ed, can then be exported back into the grid during low generation periods or at periods of high demand. Consequently, although not a producer of renewable energy, the proposed BESS would, nonetheless, make a meaningful contribution towards the delivery of climate change through renewable and low carbon energy and meeting net zero targets. In accordance with paragraph 168 of the Framework, substantial weight is afforded to such benefits which demonstrates that there is unmet need for the propos al . Thus, I find that criteri on ( b ) of the paragraph 155 exception applies to this case. Paragraph 155 - Criterion (c) 24. Criteri on ( c ) requires that the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular regard to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. 25. The locational requirement for the proposal, its proximity to Leds ton Substation, has implications for the accessibility of the site in this rural area. However, except for the construction and decommissioning phases, the facility would not generate much traffic and could not reasonably be considered to be significant development in this regard . 26. In addition, there is no compelling evidence before me to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access could not be provided and secured by condition , and I note that the Highway Authority did not object . 2 Renewable and low carbon energy - Paragraph: 032 Reference ID: 5 - 032 - 20230814 Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 27. Overall, I consider that the proposal would be in a sustainable location having regard to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework and that paragraph 155(c) applies to this case. Paragraph 155 - Criterion ( d ) 28. As the proposal is not major development involving the provision of housing, the ‘Golden Rules’ do not apply. Inappropriate development conclusion 29. Consequently, I find that the proposal would satisfy the requirements of paragra ph 155 and, therefore, it would not b e inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Thus, it is not necessary for me to address whether the proposal would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and, in the absence of any identified Green Belt harm, no very special circumstances are required to justify the development . Fire risk 30. The Council ha s cited , in its second reason for refusal, that the proposal does not include adequate mitigation to reduce the risk of fire as recommended within the National Fire Chief Council’s 2022 guidance 3 (the Guidance) . W ithin the final SoCG , t he Council has agreed that following an update to the Guidance in December 2025, the only conflict is in respect of vehicle access from the highway , having initially also rais ed concerns about BESS separation. 31. I note that WYFRS has raised concerns that a single point of access to Newton Lane is proposed, as the Guidance sets out that it is preferable to also provide an alternative access point, taking account of wind direction . WYFRS has not, howev er, justified why it considers that the proposed access around the perimeter of the compound is not a ‘loop’ type that the Guidance suggests as a suitable a lternative to the provision of a second access point . 32. Interested parties have suggested that fire service vehicles would not be able to negotiate the bends in the perimeter access . Nonetheless , as such bends would be outside of the compound and not flanked on the outer side by any form of bound ary treatment , it is reasonable to consider that fire service vehicles would have the space to be able to manoeuvre around the compound in either direction . Therefore, noting that wind direction can be variable, if one route around the compound was obscured by a smoke plume, the water supply contained in the Su DS /firewater retention pond could be accessed from another direction . Furthermore, in the unlikely event that the access to the site from Newton Lane was impassible , given the limited separation distance and notwithstanding that there is a narrow belt of trees between the road and the site , I am satisfied that access could be gained from Barnsdale Road on foot in an emergency . 33. I find, therefore, based on the evidence before me, that the proposed site access arrangements accord with the Guidance and are satisfactory in respect of public safety . 34. The appeal plans show that 3 m etre BESS separation can be achieved , which exceeds the Guidance as revised in December 2025, and it is indicated that the BESS units would be tested to the UL9540A latest standard , as would the fire 3 Grid Scale Battery Energy Storage System Planning – Guidance for Fire and Rescue Services Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 suppression system that would be installed. The site would be continuously monitored to detect any faults and any affected battery would be taken offline to minimise the risk of thermal runaway. I am, th us , satisfied that the risk of a fire starting and spreading to other units, would be minimise d subject to appropriate measures and controls being secured by condition . 35. Although the c ompound is wholly in flood zone 1 , where there is a low probab i li ty of flooding , p hotographs provided by an interested party shows that the site occasionally floods . T here is , however, no compelling evidence before me to suggest that the proposed SuDS could not be designed to ensure that it appropriate ly addresses surface water run - off , or that there would be a material risk of thermal runaway due to on - site flooding . The imposition of conditions would secure full details of the SuDS as well as its implementation and management and would ensure that water discharge does not increase the risk of flooding or contamination . 36. I have had regard to the concerns expressed by interested parties about matters which might prevent the WY FRS from being able to tackle any fire s , including whether the SuDS pond would contain sufficient water, whether such water could be drawn from the pond, and that only one pumping chamber is proposed. I understand the concerns in relation to the risks posed by the proposal and the absence of finalised details as to how such risks would be mitigated . I have also had regard to the instances of fires at BESS sites that have been brough t to my attention. 37. It is, however, commonplace for BESS approvals to include conditions requiring battery safety, fire risk and firewater management plans , and to secure a final emergency response plan . This ensure s that the developer can procure the most technologically advanced and safest sys tems and that the agreed plans are appropriate for the systems to be installed. It would be the responsibility of the Council to discharge any such conditions imposed , and it would be able to seek advice from relevant consultees as to w hether such plans were fit for purpose . For these reasons, I am not persuaded that the use of conditions would be inappropriate in this case or that further evidence is required to be satisfied that the risk of fire could be appropriately mitigated . 38. I therefore find that sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that adequate mitigation to reduce the risk of fire, ensure public safety and avoid environmental damage could be secured through planning conditions. The proposal would not conflict with UDP Policy GP5 which, amongst other things, requires that proposals should seek to avoid problems of pollution and danger to health and life. In addition, there would be no conflict with Policy Water 2 of the Natural Resources and Waste Local Pla n, adopted January 2013 , which requires that development within areas adjace nt to sensitive water bodies, must demonstrate control the quality of surface water run - off for the lifetime of the development . It would also accord with the similar aims of the Framework, including those set out at paragraph 102. 39. The second reason for refusal also refers to UDP Policy N35 . However , as this relates to best and most versatile agricultural land, i t is not relevant to this main issue . Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 Heritage Assets 40. A Grade II listed milepost is located near to the appeal site, within the highway verge adjoining Barnsdale Road. It is described in the list description as a stone post of triangular section with flat semi - circular head, cast - iron plates with raised lette ring bolted onto the head and each of the 2 outer faces. 41. The significance and special interest of the milestone are derived from its associative and historic value as a way marker. Its setting comprises the roadside. Given that the route it relates to would be unaltered, the proposal would not obstruct the funct ional use of the milestone and therefore would not harm the way that this listed structure is experienced. Thus, the proposal would not harm the setting, or the significance of this designated heritage asset. 42. The Grade II listed Low Lodge was constructed in the early 19 th century , along with the associated gate piers and wall which form part of the listing and is located a short distance to the north of the appeal site on the opposite side of Barnsdale Road. Low Lodge is a single storey building, in the G othic style , built in sandstone ashlar with a slate roof. The architectural features include a deeply recessed doorway which h as a hoodmould, a window of 2 arched lights with hollow spandrels and hoodmould, and moul d ed corni c e to an em battled parapet . The low screen walls each side of the entrance to the drive are concave in plan with square piers at each end. The significance and special interest of Low Lodge, the gate piers and wall are , in part, derived from their aesthetic value arising from their attractive design. 43. The B arn, approximately 10 metres west of Home Farm Farmhouse is also Grade II listed . It was built, with integral stables, byre and dovecote, in the earlier 18 th century , as part of the former Kippax Park Home Farm, associated with the former Kippax Hall. Its significance , in the context of this appeal, derives from its historic value as part of a historic farmstead. 44. The significance of Low Lodge and the B arn is also derived from their historical association with Kippax Hall, now demolished, and its parkland . The extract of the 1893 map provided by the appellant shows the parkland to be located to the northwest of the appeal site on the opposite side of Barnsdale Road. Low Lodge would have served as a gatehouse to K ippax Hall and Home Farm would have produced food and income for its occupants . The relationship of the listed buildings to the parkland provide s a historic understanding of the hi erarchy and functional links to the former Kippax Hall , so contributing to a sense of social history. 45. Ledston Substation adjoins Low Lodge and lies between it and the appeal site. The Barn , which is further away , would be separated from the proposal by several intervening fields . Both listed buildings are on the opposite side of Barnsdale Road to the appeal site. 46. The proposal would not , therefore, intrude upon the immediate surrounds of these listed buildings and would have no physical impact on the m . Furthermore, the appeal site does not form part of the parkland and does not contribute to the historical relationship of these listed building s to Kippax Hall. For t hese reasons, I consider that the proposal would not harm the way that Low L odge and the B arn are experienced and, therefore, would not have a harmful effect on their setting or significance . Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 47. The Grade I Ledston Hall (the Hall) , was started circa 1200 as a chapel and kitchen built by the monks of Pontefract Abbey and extended circa 1500. It was then acquired after the Dissolution and incorporated into a courtyard house circa 1560 which was then subordinated to a grandiose scheme in the 17 th century. Its architectural features include the symmetrical 11 bays of the principal range of the Hall , the straight flight of steps protected by a wrought iron balustrade which leads to the principal entranc e , the piano nobile , the Dutch Gables that disguise the roof line , and the four corner turrets of the wings which have a low ogee - shaped pyramidal lead cap with ball finial. 48. The stable block and entrance gates and lodges, sited close to the Hall, are also Grade I listed and the Garden House adjoining the west terrace is Grade II* listed. Several Grade II* and Grade II listed structures are also located within the garden of the Hall. These form part of the Grade II* Registered Park and Garden (RPG) which comprises a designed landscape immediately surrounding the hall , and an area of pasture and wooded parkland to the north, North Park. According to the list entry, t he RPG, the w alled gardens and terraces are probably of late 17 th century and early 18 th century with elements of the garden designed by Charles Bridgeman, as shown in plans dated 1738. The North Park is said to have 17 th century origins. 49. The Hall, associated buildings and structures, and its designed landscape is situated in an elevated position some distance from the appeal site on the edge of Ledston village, with North Park further away. The significance of the listed buildings , in the context of this appeal, derives from the grand architectural qualities of the Hall , the surviving historic fabric and the relationship to the designed landscape. The significance of the RPG is, in part, derived from its designed form and its relationship w ith the Hall. 50. Due to the topography and intervening vegetation, I find that it would be unlikely for the proposal to be prominent or harmful within views from and towards these designated heritage assets. However, the proposal would change the character of the approach to the Hall from Barnsdale Road . Whilst this would only affect a small part of the route and would be mitigated to some extent by the proposed landscaping, I find that the proposal would harm the significance of Ledston Hall and the associated buildings an d structures . Such harm to each of the se heritage assets would, in my view, be at the lower end of ‘less than substantial’ , but, n ever theless , of considerable importance and weight . 51. At the request of an interested party, I visited Ledston village which contains a Grade II listed building within its core , now known as Manor Barn Cottages. It is a two - storey, stone built former barn enclosed by a stone wall. Based on my observations and in the context of this appeal , I consider that the significance of this listed building derives from its historic value as an agricultural building . D ue to the limited, if any, intervisibility between the appeal site and the village, I consider that the proposal would not harm the way that this listed building is experienced , and its setting and significance would be preserved. 52. Although I agree that there are many other buildings within Ledston which have a degree of architectural and historic interest, there is no evidence before me to suggest that they should be treated as non - designated heritage assets. In any event, for the reasons given in the preceding paragraph, I consider that the Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 pr oposal would not harm the character and appearance, or any sign i ficance, of the village and the other buildings it contains in addition to Manor Barn Cottages . 53. As set out above , I have identified that there would be harm to the Grade I listed Ledston Hall , Grade I listed stable block and entrance gates and lodges, Grade II* listed west terrace and the Grade II* and Grade II listed structures located within the garden of the Hall . Such harm individually and cumulatively would be less than substantial . 54. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the Framework, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Although of significant importance and weight, I find that t he less than substantial harm that I have identified to the significance of the designated heritage assets is , nonetheless, outweighed by the public benefi ts of the proposal which I have set out above. Consequently, it accords with the Framework and the expectation of section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 . Other Considerations 55. The appeal site is 600 metres from , and within the impact risk zone of, the Fairburn and Newton Ings SSSI, which is a nationally notable wetland recognised for its value to overwintering, breeding and migrant birds as well as for its diverse botanical communities and invertebrates. Lin Dike , which passes close to the appeal site, flows through the SSS I . Consequently, t he discharge of polluted fire water run - off has the potential to adversely affect Lin Dike and, in turn, the SSSI. 56. Concerns have also been raised that contaminated fire water run - off could not be retained on site after an incident, and that there is no mechanism in place to ensure tankers could remove contaminated water within an appropriate time frame. However, the main parties agree that mitigation measures c ould be secure d to ensure that contaminated firewater is safely within the site and that there is no risk of it being discharged into the adjacent Lin Dike . Furthermore, I note that the Environment Agency and Natural England have not objected to the scheme . 57. I n the absence of any contrary technical evidence , there is no basis upon which I could reach a different conclusion. Accordingly , I find that , subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal would not have likely significan t effects the qualifying features of the SSSI . 58. I acknowledge that full details of the proposal have not been provided. However, a plan setting the scale parameters of the proposal and others showing indicative elevations have been included as appeal documents. Contrary to the view of interested parties, I am satisfied that such plans , together with the supporting documents, provide sufficient information to describe the proposal and to enable an assessment of it , including its impact on the character and appearance of the area. 59. As identified in the appellant’s Landscape and Visual Appraisal and Landscape Technical Note , the site is mainly experienced in short distance views from a short section of the Ledston 8 Public Right of Way (PRoW) that crosses the site , and along short sections of Barnsdale Road and Newton Lane. Otherwise, the site is currently screened by mature hedgerows and trees . I t is , however, reasonable to consider that the site will become more exposed if the considerable number of Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 trees within the Barnsdale Road tree belt, identified for removal due to Ash Dieback , are felled. 60. The proposed development would bring a change from an open green field to an industrial compound containing utilitarian structures. E xisting planting would partially screen the development when initially installed . Nonetheless, it would be seen as an urban feature in the identified short distance views. 61. Many heavy standard trees would be planted as part of a landscaping scheme which would, over time, soften the appearance of the development in views from Newton Lane and the PRoW . However, as there is no room for tree planting along the west side of the compound it would be highly visible along Barnsdale Road if/when Ash trees are removed. 62. Although 40 years is more than a generation, so a considerable period, the proposal is not permanent and I could impose conditions to ensure that the permission would be restricted to this time period, and to require subsequent decommissioning and reinstatement of the land . I am satisfied that this would, to a limited extent, temper the impact of the proposal as would its siting close to the other industrial features of the Leds ton Substation and Allerton Bywater Business Park . Furthermore, conditions can be imposed to secure the approval of the full details of the proposal. Nevertheless, I find that it would result in localised harm to the character and appearance of the area for the duration of the development. 63. The main parties agree that the appeal site is classified as Grade 3a agricultural land. As such, the proposal would result in the temporary loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. N ever theless, the appeal site, at 1.71 hectares , could make only a limited contribution to food production and, therefore, the proposal would be unlikely to make a meaningful impact on food security. 64. Overall, although I have found localised harm to the character and appearance of the area and through the loss of land for food production, this would not outweigh the significant benefit s arising from the contribution that the proposal would make to the mitigation of climate change and the regulation of electricity flows within the wider supply networ k, as set out above . The proposal would not , therefore, seriously conflict with the interests of protecting areas of the best and most versatile agricultural land , a nd , as such, the granting of planning permission would not be contrary to UDP Poli cy N35. Other Matters 65. The appellant’s noise impact assessment (NIA) is based on an indicative scheme and is limited to the nearest properties. Nonetheless, in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary , there is no reason to dispute its findings. As such , in line with the conclusions of the NIA , I consider that noise from the propos al would not lead to unaccep t able internal noise levels within the closest dwellings , which can reasonably be expected to be the most likely to be affected by noise arising from the proposal . I note that the Council has not objected on such grounds . I therefore find that the living conditions of nearby residents would not be adversely affected by the proposal . 66. It has been suggested that a financial bond should be secured for the decommissioning and restoration of the site to ensure that this would not be at the public’s expense. However, this is not common practice in BESS approvals, and Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 there is no compelling evidence before me to suggest that the re is a material risk that decommissioning and restora t i o n works would not be completed by the appellant or a future owner of the development . Therefore, the absence of any mechanism to secure a financial bond does not weigh against the proposal. Planning Obligation 67. The appeal is supported by a planning obligation in the form of an agreement , dated 23 February 2026 , made pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Agreement ). Consideration of planning obligations is to be undertaken having regard to paragraph 58 of the Framework and the statutory requirements contained in Regulation 122 and 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations, 2010 (the Regulations). 68. The Agreement makes provision for the payment of an onsite biodiversity net gain (BNG) monitoring contribution of £3,000 to meet the Council’s costs for the monitoring of the significant increase in on - site habitat biodiversity value that would arise from the development, and which would form an integral part of it . As the contribution will assist in ensuring that conditions relating to BNG are complied with , I find that it would be ne cessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and would be directly related to it . In addition, t he amount has not been disputed, and there is nothing before me that would lead me to conclude that it would not be fairly and reasonabl y related in scale and kind to the development. The Agreement therefore accords with the Framework and the Regulation s . Conditions 69. The main parties provided me with agreed conditions, which I have revie we d a nd amended in line with guidance and best practice , and to ensure consistency and clarity . Where amendments have been made to the wording of the suggested conditions, these have not changed the substance of them. 70. I have, in the interests of certainty, imposed condition s that specif y that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans , which includes the para meter plan referred to above , and to limit the export capacity of the BESS. 71. I have also imposed a condition limiting the period of the proposed development to 40 years as that was the basis of my assessment. It is appropriate and necessary to impose condition s to secure the decommissioning of the development and the restoration of the site at the end of that timeframe , or sooner if the development is no longer in use . Such conditions are required to protect the Green Belt from permanent incursion, and in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. A pre - commencement condition covering the management of soil on the site is necessary in the interests of agricultural land quality. 72. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area , approval of the full details of the BESS and associated equipment is necessary . As no evidence is before me that such requirements are relevant to planning and /or the development , I have simplified the condition from that which was agreed by the main parties by removing the list of requirements relating to security measures . Nonetheless, t he appellant is aware of the advice of West Yorkshire Police and ma y choose to incorporate the recommended measures in the details submitted to satisfy the condition. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 73. I have imposed , in the interests of the character and appearance of the area , conditions requiring approval and implementation of site levels and detailed tree and hedgerow protection measures . These are pre - commencement condition s as levels need to be agreed before any works commence and to ensure that the trees and hedge row s are retained and protected over the full course of construction, decommissioning and restoration works. I have, however, omitted the requirement that protection measures should be employed during the operational phase of the development as there is nothing before me to suggest that there is a risk of loss or damage to trees and hedgerows during that time. 74. Conditions regarding approval , implementation and verification of hard and soft landscaping works are also necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area . However, it is not reasonable to require that landscaping works are maintained for the lifetime of the development as h as been suggested . I have, therefore, amended the wording of the condition to require replacement planting during the standard period of five years which should allow it to mature and become established. 75. I have , in the interests of highway safety , imposed conditions relating to the construction of the site access and visibility splays , and which specify the position of the access gates . 76. I acknowledge the concern expressed by i nterested parties that the provision of visibility splay s would involve land outside of the application site , but there is no compelling evidence to suggest that the requirements in this regard could not be me t . I have also considered t he use of a Grampian condition to secure the visibility splays , as discussed at the Hearing. However, a s the evidence before me indicates that the land required in this regard is either within the site or on the public highway, and no p hysical alteration to the public highway would be needed , I do not consider that such a negatively worded condition , that prohi bits develo pment until the splays are in place , is necessary . 77. In the interests of protecting the enjoyment and safety of the users of the PRoW that crosses the site, I have imposed a condition requiring that it is protected and improved. I also consider that it is necessary to control any construction, decommissioning and restoration works in the interests of protecting the living conditions of nearby residents, highway safety and to protect the environment . However, to ensure that the agreed measures reflect the circumstances at the time that decommissioning and rest oration takes place , which may be materially different to the construction phase, I have split the requirements into two conditions . I have adopted t he same timing clause for the decommissioning and restoration phase a s that imposed in condition 5 to ensure consistency . 78. The controls to protect the users of the PRoW and the construction phase mus t be secured through pre - commencement condition s to ensure protection measures are agreed and in place prior to the start of any construction works. 79. I consider that it is reasonable and necessary to ensure that defects to the public highway arising from the development are identified and made good. To that effect, I have amended the condition as suggested by the main parties and imposed a condition to secure a baseline survey prior to the commencement of development, to establish the condition of the road prior to the start of construction works . I have also imposed a separate condition that requires the agreement and Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 implementation of a method statement to secure surveys at specified stages of the development and the submission and approval of remediation works. Such amendments have not changed the substance of the suggested condition . 80. A geophysical survey , provided with the appeal documents , indicates that there is the potential for archaeological remains to be found within the site. I am, therefore, satisfied that a condition is required to secure archaeological recording s. This is a pre - commencement condition as, by their nature, such investigations would largely take place before construction works commence. 81. In the interests of minimising impacts on biodiversity of the nearby Lin Dike and on - site , management of works are necessary . I have simplified and combined the suggested conditions into one to require the provision of Construction Environmental Management Plan to avoid repetition and have clarified that it relates to the construction, decommissioning and restoration works, given that biodiversity can be affected during these phases of the development. For the same reason, I have imposed conditions to secure the provision and management of a buffer zone along the Lin Dike, and details of the outfall and headwall to Lin Dike . A condition securing Landscape and Biodiversity Net Gain Management Plan (BNGMP) to provide a significant increase in on - site habitat biodiversity value and a monitoring plan , is also necessary in accordance with the PPG . The se are pre - commencement condition s to ensure that appropriate measures and enhancements are identified and put in place before development commences. 82. I have omitted any reference to the minimum number of units to be delivered from the wording of the BNGMP condition , as was agreed by the main parties at the Hearing . In addition, I do not consider that it is necessary to provide details of how the BNGMP will be funded and confirmation that it can be delivered. I have therefore omitted this requirement from the con d ition . 83. To enhance and protect biodiversity, conditions are required to secur e monitoring reports in respect of the implementation of the BNGMP , to secure bat roosting and bird nesting features and to require confirmation t hat such features have been provided, and to requir e the agreement of a lighting design strategy. However, I do not consider that it is necessary for the Council to approve t he required confirmation that the approved ba t and bird features have been installed and have omitted that requirement from the condition as worded in this decision 84. To protect the living conditions of nearby residents, I have imposed conditions that restrict operational sound levels and requi res testing to confirm compliance with such levels, and restricting hours of working during the construction, decommissioning and site restoration phases . Again , I do not consider that it is necessary for the Council to approve the required confirmation that the development complies with the specified operation al noise levels , and I have adjusted the wording of the condition accord ingly. 85. As discussed previously , conditions are necessary to ensure that a final battery safety management plan, emergency response plan, risk management plan and fire water management plan are approved and implemented to ensure the safe operation of the site in the interests of public safety and the protection of the environment and biodiversity . Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 86. To minimise the risks of surface water flooding I have imposed a condition that requires compl iance with the submitted Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment Report . Conclusion 87. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed. Elaine Moulton INSPECTOR APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Stephanie Hall Barrister, Kings Chambers Steven Longstaff ELG Planning Louise Wood ELG Planning Tessa Fletcher Harmony Energy Jim Tough Abbott Risk Consultancy Ltd Mark Evans CMLI Urban Green FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Phillipa Plumtree - Varley Principal Legal Officer David Newbury Group Manager – Development Management INTERESTED PARTIES: Councillor James Lewis Ward Member Lynne Howard Local resident Alan Taylor Local resident DOCUMENTS Document 1 Extract from the Ash Dieback map Document 2 Planning Obligations Summary and Title Verification – Leeds City Council Document 3 Community Infrastructure Levy Compliance Statement – Leeds City Council Document 4 An updated/amended list of conditions Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and such other drawings and documents as may be approved pursuant to other conditions of this permission : • Location Plan – PA - LS - LP_Rev H (dated 25.07.2023) • Proposed Parameters Plan – PA - LS - PSP_Rev H (dated 18.09.2 023) 3) The Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) shall have an exported capacity not exceeding 25 MWac . 4) Planning permission is granted for a temporary period only and shall cease to have effect 40 years following the date of receipt of the Final Operational Notification from the District Network Operator (or equivalent organisation). Written confirmation sha ll be submitted to the l ocal p lanning a uthority within 14 working days of the date of its receipt from the District Network Operator (or equivalent organisation). 5) Eighteen months before the end of the 40 - year operational period, taken from the Final Operational Notification date submitted under Condition 4, a Decommissioning and Restoration Scheme (DRS) for the removal of the Battery Energy Storage System and all as sociated approved development under, on and over the land within the site shall be submitted to , and approved in writing by, the l ocal p lanning a uthority . The DRS shall include a timetable, details and measures to achieve and address the following: i) Removal of the development from the land, inclusive of the outfall and headwall to Lin Dike, the site access from Newton Lane and all cables and pipework ii) Engineering of the land to return it to its previous or enhanced appearance, including a method statement for the handling and laying out of the original soils stripped from the site iii) Returning the land to an agricultural land classification of not less tha n Grade 3a (good quality land), to be confirmed via an independent Agricultural Land Classification Report iv) Retention of any approved planting and its protection during the decommissioning phase, and for all protection measures to be removed on full decommissioning v) Removal of signage required by this planning permission vi) Provision of hard and soft boundary treatment with Newton Lane for the full width of the approved site access (once removed), inclusive of protection measures for existing plants either side of the former access and full details of new plants. The approved DRS shall be implemented, achieved and completed within 12 months of the end of the 40 - year period taken from the date submitted under Condition 4. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 6) In the event the development ceases to export electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12 months, it will be deemed to have ceased to be required. A Decommissioning and Restoration Scheme (DRS) for the removal of the BESS and all associated approved development under, on and over the land within the site shall be submitted to , and approved in writing by, the l ocal p lanning a uthority within 3 months of the deemed cessation date. The DRS shall include a timetable, details and measures to achieve and address the requirements i – vi of Condition 5. The approved DRS shall be implemented, achieved and completed within 12 months of the l ocal p lanning a uthority’s written approval being issued. 7) Prior to their erection on site, external details (specifications, measurements, design, colour and finishes) of the battery containers, transformer containers, PCS units, substation, control room, switch room, storage/office container, gates, fencing, ext ernal lighting, CCTV and associated structures shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority . The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 8) No development shall commence until a scaled plan(s) showing existing site ground levels and proposed finished site ground levels in conformity with the Firewater Management Plan ref. GON.0238.0141v7 (received 06.01.2026) and the Proposed Site and Earthwor ks Plan ref. PA_22_PSPa Rev. K have been submitted to , and approved in writing by , the l ocal p lanning a uthority . The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 9) Prior to commissioning of the BESS , the vehicular access from Newton Lane shall be fully constructed in accordance with plan ref. LTP/5076/V1.01F. The vehicular access gradient shall not exceed a maximum of 1 in 25 for the first 10m from the highway and shall be hard bound surfaced in an ap propriate naturalised colour and drained for the initial 25m from Newton Lane. The surface and substructure of the approved vehicular access road shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter for the lifetime of the de velopment. The approved access shall not be brought into use until the visibility splays shown on plan ref. LTP/5076/V1/01.01 H have been cleared of any obstruction exceeding 1m in height above the adjoining carriageway . The visibility splays shall be retained as such for the lifetime of the development. 10) Gates across the site access road to the development site shall be set back 5 metres from the back edge of the highway, and only open inwards into the development site. 11) No development shall commence until a Statement of Construction Practice and Traffic Management Plan (CPTMP) has been submitted to , and approved in writing by , the l ocal p lanning a uthority . The CPTMP shall be based on the following requirements and details: i) Construction vehicle routing to and from the site shall be limited to Barnsdale Road and directly to the site access point on Newton Lane ii) The means of access, location of site compound, storage, and parking (including workforce parking) (temporary or otherwise), the means of loading Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 and unloading of all contractors' plant, equipment, materials and vehicles and associated traffic management measures iii) Timings of deliveries to and from the site iv) Methods to prevent mud, grit and dirt being carried out of the site on to the public highway v) Measures to control the emissions of dust and dirt during construction vi) How the CPTMP will be made publicly available by the developer. The approved CPTM P shall be implemented at the commencement of works on the site and shall thereafter be retained and employed until completion of the works on the site and shall be made publicly available for the lifetime of the construction phase of the development in accordance with the approved method of publicity . 12) Eighteen months before the end of the 40 - year operational period, taken from the Final Operational Notification date submitted under Condition 4, a Statement of Decommissioning and Restoration Practice and Traffic Management Plan ( DR PTMP) shall be submitted to , and approved in writing by, the l ocal p lanning a uthority based on the requirements and details set out in condition 11. Upon decommissioning of the development and for the duration of site restoration the approved DR PTMP shall be implemented until completion of the approved Restoration Scheme pursuant to conditions 5 and/or 6 (whichever relevant). The DR PTMP shall be made publicly available for the lifetime of the decommissioning and restoration phases of the development in accordance with the approved method of publicity. 13) No development shall commence until a baseline survey of the condition of Barnsdale Road ( for a distance of 50m either side of the crossroad junction with Newton Lane and Park Lane ) and Newton Road ( from the crossroad junction and the farthest point of the site access from that junction ) has been submitted to , and approved in writing by , the local planning authority . 14) Prior to commissioning of the BESS , a Defect Remediation Method Statement (DRMS) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority . The DRMS shall include : i) Confirmation that further condition surveys will be carried out following the completion of construction works , and prior to the commenceme nt and the completion of decommissioning and restoration works . ii) The timescale s within which the results of the further condition survey s shall be submitted to the local planning authority. iii) The timescale within which details of remediation works to address defects to the public highway that are associated with the operation of the development , as identified in the further condition surveys undertaken following the completion of construction works and the completion of decommissioning and restoration works , shall be submitted to the local planning authority for its written approval. iv) How defects to the public highway associated with the operation of the development that are identified during routi ne inspections of the highway and are deemed to be a danger to the public shall be addressed . Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 The provisions of the approved DRMS shall be fully implemented and any remediation works shall be completed within three months of the date of the app roval by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. 15) No development shall commence until a Public Footpath Improvement and Protection Scheme (PFIPS) for Public Footpath Ledston No. 8 has been carried out in accordance with details that shall be submitted to , and approved in writing by , the l ocal p lanning a uthority . The PFIPS shall provid e practical and appropriate measures to protect the safety of users and their right of passage along Public Footpath Ledston No. 8 during the construction, operational, decommissioning and restoration phases of the development and shall include full details of : i) a clearly demarcated crossing point on the site access road for footpath users ii) footpath surface improvements iii) warning signage to the footpath The approved measures to protect the footpath users shall be retained for the lifetime of the development and for the decommissionin g and site restoration phases after which time they shall be removed . 16) No development shall commence until a programme of archaeological recording has been conducted , by an appropriately qualified and experienced archaeological consultant , in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which shall have been submitted to , and approved in writing by , the l ocal p lanning a uthority . 17) No development shall take place until a Construction and Ecological Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to , and approved in writing by, the l ocal p lanning a uthority . The CEMP shall put in place measures to retain and protect the 0.68 Habitat Units, 0.72 Hedgerow Units and 1.12 Watercourse Units as identified in the On - site Habitat (A1), Hedgerow (B1), and Watercourse (C1) Baseline Units to be Retained and Enhanced in the Biodiversity Metric (submitted to the l ocal p lanning a uthority on 08.10.2024) and i nclude the following: i) An Environmental Risk Assessment detailing the potential damage to valuable habitats caused by construction / decommissioning/ restoration activities ii) Identification of "biodiversity protection zones" , environmentally sensitive areas and buffer zones iii) Measures to avoid , reduce and/or mitigate impacts during construction / decommissioning/ restoration works iv) Location and timings of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features, v) T imes during construction / decommissioning/ restoration when specialist ecologists need to be present to oversee works vi) Details of management responsibilities, including an appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works or a suitably qualified ecologis t vii) Use of protective fences to BS 5837:2012, exclusion barriers and warning signs. The construction / decommissioning/ restoration phases of the development shall take place in accordance with the provi sions of the approved CEMP. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 18) No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision and management of a minimum 10 metre wide buffer zone alongside the Lin Dike waterbody has been submitted to , and approved in writing by, the l ocal p lanning a uthority . The buffer zone scheme shall be free from built development and shall include: i) Scaled plans showing the extent and layout of the undeveloped buffer zone ii) Details of any proposed vegetation enhancements and/or planting scheme iii) Details of any proposed habitat improvement within the buffer zone iv) Details demonstrating how the undeveloped buffer zone will be protected and managed over the long - term during the construction, oper a tional, decom missioning and site restoration phases. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme until restoration of the site has been completed. 19) No development shall commence until a detailed design plan of the outfall and headwall to the Lin Dike waterbody has been submitted to , and approved in writing by, the l ocal p lanning a uthority . The plan shall detail: i) The outfall and headwall set back from the channel and angled 45 degrees pointing downstream ii) S cour protection which if needed should be of the minim um appropriate size iii) The headwall should be hand built and minimise encroachment into the riparian zone iv) The m ethod and timescale for removing the outfall, headwall and any scour protection measures during the site restoration phase following removal of the development. The approved design plan shall be implemented at the commencement of works on the site and shall thereafter be retained until removed in accordance with the approved timescale and Restoration Plan pursuant to conditions 5 and/or 6 (whichever is relevant). 20) No development shall commence until a Plants Protection Scheme (PPS) has been submitted to , and approved in writing by , the l ocal p lanning a uthority . The PPS shall detail measures , in accordance with BS5837 , to be employed to protect trees and hedgerow s to be retained in and around the site during the construction, decommissioning and site restoration phases. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the commencement , and retained for the duration, of each phase . 21) T he development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until full details of both hard and soft landscape works, including a dated implementation programme (inclusive of any phasing), have been submitted to , and approved in writing by , the l ocal p lanning a uthority . Hard and soft landscape works shall include the following: i) written specifications, including soil depths, cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 20 ii) schedules of plants noting species, planting sizes, root packaging and proposed numbers/densities iii) drainage proposals iv) hard surfacing for parking of emergency vehicles along the internal access road All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, approved implementation programme, British Standard BS 4428:1989 (Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations) and in general accordance with Leeds City Council website landscape guidance entitled ‘Landscape Planning and Development’. The landscaping works shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development. If, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, any tree or shrub (or any tree or shrub planted in replacement for it) is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective, another tree of the same size and species as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place within the first planting season follo wing the removal, uprooting, destruction or death of the original tree . 22) All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the implementation programme approved pursuant to condition 2 1 . On completion of those works and by no later than 12 months following the development being brought into use, a Verification Report shall be submitted to , and approved in writing by , the l ocal p lanning a uthority to demonstrate that the approved hard and soft landscaping works have been implemented. 23) No development shall commence until a Landscape and Biodiversity Net Gain Management Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by , the local planning authority and shall include details of the following: i) Description of features to be delivered and managed to include Baseline Metric calculations of Biodiversity Units with Condition assessments and UKHab mapping ii) Extent and location/area of proposed features and Biodiversity Units on scaled maps and plans using UKHab mapping, with Target Condition assessments and Metric calculations iii) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management iv) Aims and Objectives of management to include Target Biodiversity Units and Target Condition Criteria v) Appropriate management Actions for achieving Aims and Objectives vi) A dated Annual Work Programme (to cover the initial 5 year period) vii) Details of the specialist ecological management body/organisation responsible for implementation of the Plan viii) For each of the first 5 years of the Plan, a progress report sent to the l ocal p lanning a uthority, within 3 months of each year being completed, by an appropriately qualified ecological consultant reporting on progress of the Annual Work Programme and confirmation of required Actions for the next 12 month period ix) Confirmation that habitat monitoring will be carried out in years 1, 3, 5,10, 20 and 30 Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 21 x) The Plan shall set out how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented when necessary The Plan will be reviewed and updated every 5 years, and implemented for the lifetime of the development in accordance with the approved details. 24) Biodiversity Net Gain Habitat Monitoring Reports will be carried out in Years 1, 3, 5, 10, 20 and 30 as per the stated years in the Landscape and BNG Management Plan by an appropriately qualified ecological consultant and , within 3 months of each year being completed , shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority . The BNG Habitat Monitoring Reports will include the following: i) Confirmation of the number of Biodiversity Units present based on a survey at an appropriate time of year and how this compares to the minimum of 7.57 Habitat Units, 1.11 Hedgerow Units and 1.30 Watercourse Units on land identified in the Headline Results for On - site Post - Intervention of the submitted Statutory Biodiversity Metric (submitted to the l ocal p lanning a uthority on 08.10.2024) ii) Where the Target Condition is not yet met provide an assessment of time to Target Condition for each habitat and any changes to management that are required iii) How the monitoring is funded and the appointed specialist ecological body Where remedial measures or changes in management are required , these will be addressed in updates of the Landscape & Biodiversity Net Gain Management Plan and its Annual Work Programmes. 25) Prior to commencement of development , a Lighting Design Strategy for Bats shall be produced by an appropriately qualified ecological consultant and submitted to, and approved in writing by , the local planning authority . The strategy shall: i) Identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for roosting, commuting or foraging bats - using an appropriately scaled map to show where these areas are ii) Show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb commuting and foraging bats. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the approved strategy and shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with it. 26) Prior to the commencement of development, a Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority to detail the provision of pole mounted bat roosting and bird nesting features (for species such as House Sparrow and Swift) within the site. The agreed plan shall show the number, specification of the bird nesting and bat roosting features and where they will be located, together with a timetable for implementation and commitment to being installed under the instruction of an app ropriately qualified Bat consultant. All approved features shall be installed prior to first use of the BESS for electricity Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 22 storage. The bird nesting and bat roosting features shall be retained in the manner as approved thereafter. 27) Written confirmation of the approved bat roosting and bird nesting features shall be submitted to the local planning authority within 10 working days of the first use of the BESS for electricity storage . This shall include photographs of features in - situ and a written statement that all features have been installed as per the agreed specifications and locations. 28) The cumulative operational sound level from the development shall not exceed the following decibel levels when measured and/or calculated from the nearest point of the footway to 88 Park Lane and the nearest point of the footway to 24 Barnsdale Road: i) Between 0700 - 2300 LAeq, 1hr 38dB at 1.5m above ground level ii) Between 2300 - 0700 LAeq , 15mins 34dB; and 54dB in the 100hz 1/3 octave band at 4.0m above ground level. 29) A post - completion sound test shall be carried out to confirm compliance with operational noise levels stated in the approved Noise Impact Assessment Report ref. 50 - 622 - R1 - 8 and the results shall be submitted to the local planning authority within 3 months of the date electricity is first stored by the approved development. 30) No BESS unit shall be installed at the site until a revised and final Battery Safety Management Plan, Emergency Response Plan, Risk Management Plan and Fire Water Management Plan have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority . The Battery Safety Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the Outline Battery Safety Management Plan ref. OWC - 048882 - 001 - REP001 - B and include the following details: i) site prevailing wind direction and speed data ii) confirmation that both external and internal site roads are suitable for fire and rescue service’s emergency response vehicle iii) the proposed provision of water for firefighting and access including personnel access from Newton Lane and, if necessary, via Public Footpath Ledston No. 8 taken from Barnsdale Road iv) spacing of batteries and cabinets, including containment approach v) location, design and cubic volume of any water tank(s) vi) a firewater management plan to include provision for firewater run - off to be safely contained within the site, tested before release and removed from the site to be treated vii) a vegetation control plan. The Emergency Response Plan , Risk Management Plan and Fire Water Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the guidance produced by the National Fire Chief Council’s guidance entitled Grid Scale Battery Energy Storage Systems, or the latest version of the document publish ed thereafter. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 23 No BESS unit shall be brought onto the site until a Review Strategy to periodically review and update the approved Battery Safety Management Plan, Risk Management Plan, Emergency Response Plan and Fire Water Management Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority . The Review Scheme shall include details about a programme for periodic review, to include a timetable for the submission of any revised plans and/or documents for the written approval of the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The approved Review Scheme shall be implemented for the duration of the development. The development shall be implemented and operated in strict accordance with the latest approved Battery Safety Management Plan, Emergency Response Plan, Risk Management Plan and Fire Water Management Plan. 31) The methods for managing flood and surface waters at the site shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use and retained and maintained for the duration of the development in accordance with the approved Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment Report ref. GON.0070.0043. 32) No works shall commence until a Soil Management Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority . The plan shall include the quantities of topsoil and subsoils to be stripped from the site, a plan to show where such topsoil and subsoil will be stripped, the method and location of topsoil and subsoil storage on site, and the management and protection of the topsoil and subsoil storage areas for the duration of the development. The development shall be implemented and carri ed out in accordance with the approved Soil Management Plan. 33) C onstruction, decommissioning and site restoration works shall only take place between the hours of: i) 0800 and 1800 on Mondays – Fridays ii) 0900 and 1300 on Saturdays. END OF SCHEDULE⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
I have therefore omitted this requirement from the con d ition . 83. To enhance and protect biodiversity, conditions are required to secur e monitoring reports in respect of the implementation of the BNGMP , to secure bat roosting and bird nesting features and to require confirmation t hat such features have been provided, and to requir e the agreement of a lighting design strategy. However, I do not consider that it is necessary for the Council to approve t he required confirmation that the approved ba t and bird features have been installed and have omitted that requirement from the condition as worded in this decision 84. To protect the living conditions of nearby residents, I have imposed conditions that restrict operational sound levels and requi res testing to confirm compliance with such levels, and restricting hours of working during the construction, decommissioning and site restoration phases . Again , I do not consider that it is necessary for the Council to approve the required confirmation that the development complies with the specified operation al noise levels , and I have adjusted the wording of the condition accord ingly. 85. As discussed previously , Conclusion …
⚖️ Citation note: When using these passages in your own appeal statement, cite each by the PINS appeal reference (visible in the title) and quote sparingly. Inspector decisions are public — attribution is the right courtesy and gives your statement gravitas. The verbatim passages above are the strongest form of precedent you can deploy.
📊 Data sources & freshness
Use this when preparing your appeal statement — the verbatim Inspector reasoning is the strongest precedent you can deploy.
- PINS plain_text (mined daily) ↗
Inspector decisions extracted from PINS Casework Portal PDFs. Filter "Outcome: Allowed" + theme keyword match. - Inspector Reasoning Extractor
Pulls Main Issue + Conclusion sections per PINS templated structure. Shared with similar_refusals.php via includes/inspector_reasoning.php.