🏆 Winning Arguments

55. A temporary permission will also allow time for additional pitches to come forward, or for the appellant to make other arrangements whilst providing stability to the occupants, including the children, of the site. 56. Therefore, taking all these points together, the benefits of granting temporary permission would substantially outweigh the adverse affects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies of the Framework. 57. Consequently, the development is in conflict with the development plan. However, material considerations indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. 58. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and I will grant a temporary permission to the appellant and other occupiers of the site for a period of ten years. This will be restricted to the current occupiers as I have taken into account their personal circumstances and interests of the children in granting this permission. Conclusion 64. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal succeeds in ground (a) and a temporary condition is granted on the deemed planning application. https://www.gov.uk/planning-

The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed and planning permission

41. The parking, highway and refuse storage conditions are more relevant to a permission for a dwelling. However, it would not be wholly irrelevant to impose them on a permission for a building of this scale within a residential garden, as there could be some increase in use of the site if the building were used for purposes associated with the existing use of the land. Likewise if it were put to some other, hitherto, unknown use. 42. Importantly, if, as I have suggested here, any permission that I grant also means that the building can be used as a dwellinghouse on the provisions of S75(3) of the 1990 Act, then those conditions are clearly necessary. As is the restriction preventing use as an HMO, due to the small size of the site. I shall impose similar conditions here. Conclusion on ground (a) 43. The building at the site does not have any adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area or living conditions of neighbouring residents, whether or not it is in an active use. In the event that it could be put to use as a dwelling, conditions can ensure that any potential residual harm can be mitigated and sufficient facilities are provided. 44. Subject to the Conclusion …

6. The main issue in the determination of this appeal is therefore the effect on the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area, with particular regard to wintering birds.

The development would be sited alongside an existing industrial area with a wide access road leading to the highway. The highways consultee reviewed the submitted evidence and raised no objection to the development in terms of traffic generation. While the development would result in an increase in traffic, I visited the site on 4 occasions at different times of day before and after the Hearing and did not see anything to lead me to find otherwise. 17. Shortly before the Hearing opened Anglian Water raised concerns over the proximity of one of the proposed buildings to their infrastructure. This was discussed at the Hearing, and it was confirmed that the pipe had been accounted for in the layout of the development, including canting one corner of the nearest building to avoid intruding on the safeguarded area. Conditions 18. The appellants and council discussed the proposed conditions at length, and they were discussed further at the Hearing. I have reviewed the conditions in accordance with the tests set out in national planning practice guidance and, where necessary, amended the wording of co Conclusion 26. The appeal proposal accords with the development plan. There are no mate…

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a mixed use

7. The main issues in the appeal are: • The effect of the proposed development on the setting of nearby listed buildings and the Beckington Conservation Area (CA); • Whether the proposed development would be likely to unacceptably increase the risk to bathing water quality at the designated Farleigh Hungerford river bathing site; • Whether the proposed development would be suitably located and whether it would be harmful to the long term sustainability of the settlement.

The balance in this case is relatively straightforward. • There would be harm to the setting of listed buildings and the CA. This must carry considerable importance and weight even through the harm would be limited as explained above. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/25/3375062 • The benefits of the proposal include the provision of market housing, which carries significant weight in a location where there is evidenced unmet need. • The provision of affordable housing also attracts significant weight. • In addition there are benefits resulting from the provision of open space available to the public and the economic benefits associated with the construction phase and support for village services. These carry moderate weight. • There is no conflict with the development plan in respect of drainage or location as set out above. 40. In my judgement the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the harm to heritage assets. Local Plan Policy DP3 requires that proposals must justify any harm to heritage assets and demonstrate overriding public benefits which would outweigh harm. The proposal complies with this requirement, which is also generally com…

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of 20

11. Having regard to the background of the appeal, the main issue is the effect of varying conditions 5 and 12 and removing conditions 10, 11 and 13 on highway safety. 3 4 R. (on the application of Fulford Parish Council) v York City Council [2019] EWCA Civ 1359 National Planning Policy Framework Plan-making and national decision-making policies August 2026 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/X3025/W/25/3370422

Condition 3 is also a pre-commencement condition so that necessary safeguards are in place for the entirety of the construction phase. 47. Section 73(5) of the Act prevents the grant of planning permission under section 73 where this would have the effect of extending the time limit for commencement. Accordingly, a condition has been imposed to ensure that development is commenced within the standard period following the approval of the reserved matters. 48. The Council’s recommended conditions also include informative advice relating to paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which provides that planning permission is granted subject to the biodiversity gain condition. Additional advice states that plastic attenuation crates will not be accepted to control highway surface water discharge and concerns highway adoption and the need for pre-commencement wildlife checks. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/X3025/W/25/3370422 49. Such advice would have no legal effect and has therefore not been included in the decision. Nevertheless, the appellant has had sight of the Council’s recommended Conclusion 50. For the reasons given a…

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the development of

3. There are three main issues in this case: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the Bollin Valley Local Landscape designation. • The effect of the proposal on highway safety in relation to the proposed junction onto Prestbury Road. • Whether the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of development plan policy and the National Planning Policy Framework ('the Framework') 4. The highway safety issue was a matter raised by local residents, but not by the Council. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectora…

Planning balance and conclusion 88. As set out above, there would be minor harm to the character and appearance of the area, and low levels of less than substantial harm to two heritage assets. In relation to the latter I have already concluded that the public benefits are more than sufficient to outweigh that harm. 89. The Council’s reason for refusal stated that the proposal represented inappropriate development in the Green Belt. However, as set out above I have concluded that this is not the case, and have referenced the Framework policy which attributes significant weight in favour of the appeal proposal. 90. I attribute substantial weight to the provision of general needs and affordable housing in the light of the shortfall in the housing land supply position 91. In addition I ascribe additional limited weight individually to various elements of the proposal – the provision of on site public open space; improved pedestrian routes; public transport provision; and the short/medium term growth in construction jobs https://www.gov.uk/planning-

The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted (with all matters

4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The development would provide two dwellings within an existing residential area which would contribute to the supply of housing within the borough and generate associated economic benefits. The proposal would deliver two dwellings each containing more than three bedrooms, therefore making a positive contribution towards the borough’s identified need for larger homes. This aligns with Policy SP2.7 of the LP which seeks to ensure that 30% of all new homes up to 2036 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3376538 comprise three or more bedrooms. Whilst these benefits would be limited due to the scale of the development, they nevertheless weigh in favour of the proposal. 39. In terms of adverse impacts, I have found that the proposal would not result in material harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, nor have I identified any other adverse impacts that would attract significant weight. Accordingly, the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development. Conclusion and Recommendation 40. The proposal would accord with the development plan, when read as a whole…

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an outline application

The CBR shall set out the engagement with local stakeholders, including a record of any offer, negotiation and acceptance or rejection of an element of shared ownership (any structure which involves a community group as a financial partner). The minimum offer shall be 5%. The CBR must set out clear guidance on the methodology for the valuation of the community offer made.” 62. Cornwall Council’s reason for the condition was to accord with the aims and intentions of CEDPD Policy RE1(f). This policy states that proposals for renewable and low carbon energy-generating and distribution networks, will be supported in the context of sustainable development and climate change where, amongst other things, commercial led energy schemes with a capacity over 5 MW shall provide an option to communities to own at least 5% of the scheme subject to viability. 63. I asked the parties how this suggested condition squared with the tests for conditions in the NPPF. Having considered the responses, I am not satisfied that this condition accords with the policy requirements for Conclusion 67. The planning balance here falls in favour of the proposal for both the drilling/testing and operational phases…

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a geothermal power