🏆 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 3332515 (Maldon District Council) — 2024-05-02

📍 Maldon District Council PINS reference: 3332515 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 April 2024 by David Smith BA(Hons) DMS MRTI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/X1545/W/23/3332515 Bickleigh Mead, Loamy Hill Road, Tolleshunt Major, CM9 8LS 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 Mr J King against the decision of Maldon District Council. The appli cation Ref is FUL/MAL/23/00127. The development proposed is for the construction of a replacement dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a replacement dwelling at Bickleigh Mead, Loamy Hill Road, Tolleshunt Major, CM9 8LS in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref FUL/MAL/23/00127, subject to the cond itions in the attached schedule. Applications for costs 2. The application for costs made by the appellant against the Council is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matter 3. The Council has advised that it is no longer able to defend two of the rea sons for refusal . These relat e to the alleged non - compliance with Policy H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and to the urbanising impact of the proposed development. Given the nature of the existing mobile home and the attached porch , the p roposal would accord with the policy on replacement dwellings. Its design would be in keeping with the character of the area and th at reason was inserted on the decision notice unintentionally. Main Issue 4. This is therefore whethe r a sequential test is required and whether the occupiers of the proposed replacement dwelling would be at risk of flooding. Reasons 5. maps show the appeal site to be located wit hin flood zone 3a. The modelling undertaken concludes that it is within flood zone 2. Either way , the proposed dwelling would be within an area with a medium or high probability of flooding. The National Planning Po licy Framework establishes that inappropriate development in such areas should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. Appeal Decision APP/X1545/W/23/3332515 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 6. As part of th is approach , a sequential test should be applied to avoid, where possible, flood risk to peop le and property and to manage any residual risk . This aims to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. Policy D5 of the Local Development Plan confirms that this test should be undertaken in accordance with national planning policy. 7. The Framework establishes that some minor development should not be subject to the sequential test but the examples given at footnote 60 do not include replacement buildings. Furthermore, this type of proposal is not included in the list of minor development in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on Flood risk and coastal change . This does include reference to dev elop ment that does not increase the size of buildings but in the context of alterations . T he proposal , on the other hand, is for a new building in a different location to what is existing. 8. The PPG also refers to taking a pragmatic approach for proposals involving comparatively small extensions to existing premises where it might be impractical to accommodate the addit ional space elsewhere. However, the proposal does not fall into that category. Furthermore, th at advice relates to the application of the sequential test b ut one has not been done. If the need for this test were always set aside because it would not allow an owner to redevelop an existing use , that would defeat the broad object ive of national policy which is to minimise the adverse consequences of flooding. 9. The application was validated without a request for a sequentia l test to be undertaken. Neither was one required for the previous application for a replacement dwelling . The reasons for refusing this scheme did not allude to the absence of a sequential test. Outline planning permission was given for a replacement d welling at Mill Cottage, Heybridge in flood zone 2 or 3 but without any mention of a sequential test in the officer report. However, whilst the requirement for a sequential test is set natio nal ly . 10. The precise circumstances of the appeal are not covered by Government policy or the associated guidance . Nevertheless , when judged against the Framework and the PPG , a sequential test is not excluded for cases involving replacement buildings. That said, the reality is that if the appeal were dismissed for that reason, a lawful dwelling would remain within an area at risk of flooding. Therefore, the actual consequences for future occupiers should be examined. 11. The proposal would have a slightly smaller footprint than the existing dwelling and associated storage units . The finished floor level would be 22.95m AOD . This is above the 1% annual probability flooding level including an allowance for climate change and therefore the property would be dry in this event. The ground floor would also be above the 0.1% annual probability level and therefore there would be safe refuge . The Flood Risk Assessment includes recommendations as to how occupiers could respond effectively during a flood event. The Environment Agency raise no objection and also confirm that compensatory storage is not required. 12. A building used as a dwelling by Annex 3 of the Framework . If the site is treated as falling within flood zone 3a then an exception test is required to comply with national policy. To that end, it has been shown that the development would be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users , without increasing flood risk elsewhere . Appeal Decision APP/X1545/W/23/3332515 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 vul to the community t hat outweighs the flood risk. Indeed, o verall flood risk would be reduced. This test is therefore passed. 13. The PPG indicates that e ven where a flood risk assessment shows the development can be made safe throughout its lifetime without increasing risk elsewhere, the sequential test still needs to be satisfied. That is not so here but this is a case where other considerations are at play. In particular, there is already a legitimate residential use on the land . The proposal would lead to a lessening in the risks from flooding because its superior construction compared to the mobile home , the raising of the floor level by 0.65m above ground level and the ability to put in place emergency plans. 14. In conclusion, the occupiers of the propo sed replacement dwelling would not be at risk of flooding . Furthermore, the existing risk s would be significantly reduced . This benefit outweighs the absence of a sequential test as required by a strict application of national policy and the consequent conflict with Policy D5 . Indeed, the proposal is acceptable in terms of the risk from flooding. O ther Matters 15. Other objections have been raised in representations, including those from the Parish Council. Any future applications to r eplace caravans in the area would be judged against Policy H 4 and the outcome of this appeal does not set a precedent in this respect. Although Bickleigh Lane is also a bridleway , the proposal would be unlikely to lead a significant increase in traffic gi ven that a single dwelling already exists at the site . Similarly, there would be no unacceptable impact on road safety at the junction with Loamy Hill Road. 16. The use of the lane for construction traffic would be short - lived as would any resulting disturban ce. The scale of development is not so large that it should be prevented due to the nature and surfacing of the access to the site. There is no technical evidence that mains water pressure would be adversely affected. The proposed dwelling would be sin gle storey and sufficiently removed from neighbouring properties to avoid a loss of privacy. Conditions 17. The plans should be confirmed in the interests of certainty. In view of this, there is no need to stipulate that the materials used should be as appro ved since they are shown on the drawings. The existing dwelling and storage building should be removed within a prescribed time period as the scheme has been considered as a replacement rather than as an additional dwelling. To ensure a satisfactory appe arance, details of the treatment of the external areas should be secured , including any landscaping. 18. Given the scale of the project , the separation from nearby properties and the provisions of other legislation, a full construction management plan is not required. However, to safeguard living conditions, the hours of construction should be limited. Details of the contents of an evacua tion plan should be agreed and made available to occupiers in order to minimise any residual risk from flooding. 19. According to the application form , surface water and foul sewage would be disposed of by connecting to the mains sewer. T he Environmental Heal th Appeal Decision APP/X1545/W/23/3332515 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 officer requested that informatives be attached to any permission but there is no indication that further drainage details are required . Passage along the bridleway is protected by other legislation and there is therefore no need for a planning conditi on to secure free and unobstructed access. Conclusion 20. Because of the lack of a sequential test, the proposal would not accord with the development plan. However, this conflict is outweighed by the fact that the safety of residential occupiers at the site would be greater than it is at present. Future residents would not be at risk of flooding . Material considerations therefore indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. So, fo r the reasons given , the p roposed replacement dwelling is acceptable and the appeal should succeed. David Smith INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/X1545/W/23/3332515 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 SCHEDULE OF 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 drawings nos 22 - 0055 - 001 REV A , 22 - 0055 - 002 REV A, 22 - 0055 - 003 REV A and 22 - 0055 - 004. 3) No development above slab level shall take place until a scheme to demolish and completely remove t he mobile home and storage and stable building shown on drawing no 22 - 0055 - 004 from the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The mobile home and storage and stable building sha ll be demolished and completely removed from the site in accordance with the approved scheme and with a timetable previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 4) No development above slab level shall take place until a soft and hard landscapi ng scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include details of: a) Species of trees and shrubs to be planted, planting layouts with stock sizes and planting numbers/densities; b) A planting scheme implem entation programme, including ground protection and preparation, weed clearance, stock sizes, seeding rates, planting methods, mulching, plant protection, staking and/or other support; c) An aftercare and maintenance programme; d) Hard surfacing including materials , finishing and edgings ; and e) A timetable for implementation. The approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the timetable for implementation. Any trees or other plants approved as part of the landscaping scheme which die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size a nd species unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation. 5) Demolition or construction works shall only take place between 0730 and 1800 hours on weekdays; between 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and not at any time on Sun days or Public Holidays. 6) No development above slab level shall take place until an emergency evacuation plan in the event of a flood has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plan shall be based on the recommendat ions in the Flood Risk Assessment by Evans Rivers and Coastal July 2022 ( R ef 2558/RE/08 - 20/01 Revision A). The agreed evacuation plan shall be provided to the first occupiers of the dwelling herby permitted within one month of their occupation.

⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned

Conclusion 20. Because of the lack of a sequential test, the proposal would not accord with the development plan. However, this conflict is outweighed by the fact that the safety of residential occupiers at the site would be greater than it is at present. Future residents would not be at risk of flooding . Material considerations therefore indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. So, fo r the reasons given , the p roposed replacement dwelling is acceptable and the appeal should succeed. David Smith

🔗 View on PINS Casework Portal

✓ ALLOWED

Appeal Decision 3331533 (North Yorkshire Council) — 2024-05-02

📍 North Yorkshire Council PINS reference: 3331533 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 March 2024 by S J Lee BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 65 Wetherby Road, Knaresborough, North Yorkshire HG5 8LH The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. The appeal is made by Gladman Retirement Living against the decision of North Yorkshire Council. The application Ref is ZC23/02201/DVCMAJ. The application sought planning permission for d evelopment of r etirement a partments with care (Use Class C2) including the demolition of existing buildings, formation of new vehicular access, parking, retaining structures, hardstanding, sewer diversion, er ection of substation, refuse and maintenance stores, with associated works to trees, landscaping, formation of communal facilities and amenity space without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 21/02251/FULMAJ, dated 19 December 2 022 . The condition in dispute is No 2 which states that: The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following drawings as mo dified by the further conditions of this permission: Location Plan 09999 - P2 - 201, Site Plan 09999 - P2 - 203 Rev B, Building Appearance 09999 - P2 - 232 Rev A, Building Elevations 09999 - P2 - 231 Rev A, Floor Plans 1 09999 - P2 - 221 Rev A, Floor Plans 2 09999 - P2 - 222 Rev A, Site Sections 09999 - P2 - 214 Rev A, Site Sections 09999 - P2 - 212 Rev A, Landscape Strategy 0 9999 - P2 - 241 Rev B, Materials Statement 09999 - P2 December 2021 Rev A . The reason given for the conditio n is: In order to ensure compliance with the approved drawings . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development of ret irement apartments with care (Use Class C2) including the demolition of existing buildings, formation of new vehicular access, parking, retaining structures, hardstanding, sewer diversion, erection of substation, refuse and maintenance stores, with associa ted works to trees, landscaping, formation of communal facilities and amenity space at 65 Wetherby Road, Knaresborough, North Yorkshire HG5 8LH in accordance with the application Ref ZC23/02201/DVCMAJ , without compliance with condition numbers 2, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 28 previously imposed on planning permission Ref 21/02251/FULMAJ dated 19 December 2022 and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule . Preliminary Matters and Background 2. Following the submission of the appeal, the Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The policies relevant to this appeal did not change significant ly and thus it was not necessary to consult Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 the parties. Where necessary, I have had regard to the new Framework in my d ecision. 3. The approved permission sought to deliver 61 apartments. This application was subsequently amended under section 96(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to reduce the number of units to 55. From what I understand, this did not alter the ov erall design of the building, which remained no higher than 3 - storeys. 4. The proposal seeks to increase the number of apartments back to 61 through amendments to the approved drawings. Th e proposal would introduce a fourth storey on one part of the building. The Council refused permission for this on the basis that the changes to the approved scheme would be harmful to local distinctiveness and character . Main Issue s 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 6. The principle of development has already been established and construction is already underway. There is clearly more than a theoretical likelihood that the extant permission would be implemented in full if this appeal were dismissed. This is a very significant material consideration. The outcome of this appeal does not affect the extant permission . As such, it is not necessary for me to consider the principle of development or whether the approved element s remain acceptable . I have therefore limited my consideration to the difference in effect between the approved plans and the proposed revisions. 7. The revised plans would result in the creation of one 4 - storey element on the northern part of the building. The remainder of the building, including its broad design, height, footprint and materials used would not change. The scale and massing of the majority would therefore remain as approved . What is permitted already cons titutes a building that would be highly prominent in the street scene . This would particularly be the case when travelling along Wetherby Road. The addition of a fourth storey would increase this prominence to an extent , although it would make up only a relatively small part of the building overall . From some viewpoints, the change would not be perceived at all. However, even from where it would be more obvious on Wetherby Road, the additional storey would have a relatively small effect overall visual impact on the area. 8. The site is set at a substantially lower level than surrounding buildings . As such, although the fourth storey element would appear taller than 63 Wetherby Road, this would not be by a significant amount. There would also be a reasonable space between No 63 and the four - storey part of the building such that it would not appear as an unduly intensive or imposing structure. While f our storey buildings may not be prevalent in the area, the topography of the area means that th e development would not appear untoward, nor would it compete with buildings farther afield, such as the listed C hurch. This is some distance away and would not be affected by the development. I am therefore Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 satisfied that the alterations sought would comp lement what has been permitted and not stand out as an unduly incongruous of discordant feature. 9. Moreover, the plans do not suggest that the outward appearance of the building would change dramatically from what has been permitted . Part of the building would be taller , but the additional storey would match the detailing of the rest of the building . As such, it would complement what has already been considered acceptable. There would also be a high degree of articulation across the building , both in terms of height and footprint, which would break up the mass of the building , such that it would not appear as a monolithic structure . The variation in materials would also provide a degree of visual interest that would also help break up the structure While some trees may have already been removed, there are conditions requiring the implementation of a landscaping scheme. While this may not completely screen the development, particularly the upper storeys, it would still help to soften the over all impact of the building. 10. Overall, I do not consider the increase in height of part of the building would result in a materially more harmful impact than what has already been permitted. The additional storey would increase the prominence of the building to a degree, but this would be subsumed within the overall impact of what would be a large building in any event. Given what has been approved, t he additional storey would not appear out of place . The changes in levels would ensure the development would n ot appear excessively tall or intrusive . As the revised design s do not differ in terms of materials or general appearance, I also do not consider they would be harmful to local distinctiveness . 11. I am therefore content that the revisions to the plans would not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be no conflict wi th Harrogate and District Local Plan 2014 - 2035 (2022) Policy H P3 which seeks, am ongst other things, to ensure development protects, enhances or reinforces local characteristics. There would also be no conflict with paragraph 13 5 of the Framework, which includes provision for development to add to the overall quality of the area, be vi sually attractive, and sympathetic to local character. Other Matters 12. The site lies with in the setting of the Grade II listed Grimbald Bridge. It is also within the Knaresborough Conservation Area. The principle of development has already been established a nd t he effect of development considered acceptable. The incre ase in height of part of the building would have no additional impact on the setting of the bridge or the significance of the conservation area. The revised plans would therefore have a neutral e ffect on the heritage assets . This does not weigh against the proposal . 13. T he distance s between buildings would ensure that any increase in h eight would no t have an undue impact on the outlook or privacy of existing dwellings . While the development may be more prominent in views from nearby dwellings, including those on Fountains View, it would not have an overbearing impact on existing properties. There should also be no greater impact in terms of noise or disturbance. T he pr oposed development would not therefore have a materially greater effect on the living conditions of any occupants than the permitted scheme. There should also be no greater impact Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 on highways or highway safety, especially as 61 dwellings were initially per mitted. 14. Any issues relating to the works currently underway , including concerns about health and safety or removal of trees , are outside the scope of the appeal . use of this procedure or their motives for changing t he design have not had any bearing on my decision. Whether or not there is a need to change the design is also not a matter for me to consider. From the evidence before me, the previously refused application for a 4 - storey development differs to what is be fore me and thus does not weigh against this proposal, which I have considered on its own merits. I am also content that the of these matters alter my decision. Conditions 15. By allowing this appeal a new planning permission is created. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that, for clarity, decision notices for the grant of planning permission under S 73 should restate the conditions imposed on earlier permissions that contin ue to have effect, unless they have already been discharged. The Council and appellant have suggested new conditions that seek to reflect those which have already been discharged . It is permissible under S 73 to impose new conditions provide d they do not ma terially alter the development. It is therefore logical for these to replace discharged conditions where they meet the relevant tests. 16. Where I have no information about the status of other conditions imposed on the original planning permission, I shall im pose all those that I consider remain relevant. In the event these have since been discharged, that will be a matter which can be addressed by the parties. 17. I have imposed a condition stipulating the timescales for which development must start. I have amen ded the suggested condition such that it reflects the date of the original permission. A decision made under S73 cannot extend the time period within which a development must start (1) . For certainty, I have imposed a condition establishing the approved pl ans . Here I have used the list provided by the Council (2) . In the interests of highway safety and accessibility , I have re imposed conditions requiring the delivery of the site access , off - site mitigation measures and footpath improvements ( 3,4,5,6) . I have also included new conditions in these respects which reflect the matters already discharged. 18. In the interests of the living conditions of nearby residents and safety, I have imposed a condition requiring adhere nce to the previously agreed Construction Method and Management Statement (7) . For the same reason, I have re imposed a condition requiring the approval and implementation of a Parking Management Strategy (31). In the interests of tree protection, I have re imposed conditions relating to tree protection (8,9). In the interests of flooding , drainage and water management , I have reimposed the conditions relating to f inished floor levels, flood mitigation, avoiding the existing sewer , foul and surface water mit igation measures , the approved drainage strategy and the Flood Evacuation and Management Plan (10 , 11, 12, 13 , 22 , 29 , 30 ) . 19. To ensure issues relating to ground conditions and potential mitigation are addressed I have imposed conditions requiring adherence to the previously Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 agreed Geo - Environmental Report and Remediation Strategy (14, 15, 16). I have reimposed the condition relating to the completion of any measures in the Remediation Strategy (17). 20. In the interests of the living conditions of nearby residents I have reimposed the conditions relating to odour control (18). The appellant has indicated that a discharge of condition application had been made at the time of the appeal. However, I have had no confirmation of the outcome of this and so the original condition is imposed. For the same reasons, I have reimposed the conditions relating to light and noise ( 19, 20). 21. In the interests of biodiversity, I have imposed a condition ensuring adherence t o the previously agreed Construction Environmental Management Plan (21). In the interests of character, appearance and biod iversity, I have reimposed the conditions relating to the approval and implementation of a landscaping scheme (23 , 24 ). Again, I have no information as to whether a pending discharge of condition application has been approved and thus have used the original wording for condition 23 . 22. conditions relating to electric vehi cle charging points and solar panels (25, 26). The latter condition reflects changes previously approved by the Council as a non - material amendment. In the interests of character and appearance, I have reimposed conditions relating to window design (27). F or the same reason, I have imposed a condition requiring adherence to previously agreed details relating to materials (28). 23. Where the suggested conditions from the Council and appellant differ , I have suggested wording . This is bec ause I do not have any detailed information as to what has been approved or not as part of any discharge of condition. I am content, however, that all of the conditions are necessary and meet the relevant tests. Conclusion 24. The proposal accords with the development plan as a whole and thus, f or the reasons given above , I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will gra nt a new planning permission without the disputed condition but substituting others and restating those undisputed conditions that are still subsisting and capable of taking effect. S J Lee INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 19 December 2025 . 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following drawings: Location Plan 09999 - P2 - 201 Site Plan 09999 - P2 - 203 Rev B Building Elev ations 09999 - P3 - 331 Floor Plans 1 09999 - P3 - 321 Floor Plans 2 09999 - P3 - 322 Site Sections 09999 - P2 - 214 Rev A Site Sections 09999 - P3 - 312 Landscape Strategy 09999 - P2 - 241 Rev B 3) The development must not be brought into use until the access to the site has been set out and constructed in accordance with the Specification for Housing and Industrial Estate Roads and Private Street Works" published by the local h ighway a uthority and the following requirements unless otherwise approved in writing by the local Highway Authority. The crossing of the highway verge and footway must be constructed in accordance with the approved details to Standard Detail number E7, be a minimum of 5.5 metr es in width, and provide the footway link to the existing footpath as shown on the approved drawing P18017 - 001E. i Any gates or barriers must be erected a minimum distance of 4.8 metres back from the carriageway of the existing highway and must not be able to swing over the existing or proposed highway. ii Provision to prevent surface water from the site/plot discharging onto the existing or proposed highway must be constructed in accordance with the approved details shown on drawing Standard Detail E7 and ma intained thereafter to prevent such discharges. iii The final surfacing of any private access within 6 metres of the public highway must not contain any loose material that is capable of being drawn on to the existing or proposed public highway. iv The existing footway crossing point on Wetherby Road must be upgraded to include tactile crossing guidance, and where the new proposed footpath link joins the existing footpath network, the footway width must be widened to 2 metres. v Measures to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. All works must accord with the approved details. 4) There must be no access or egress by any vehicles between the highway and the application site until splays are provided giving cle ar visibility of 2.4 metres x 56 metres measured along both channel lines of Wetherby Road from a point measured down the centre line of the access road. Once created, these visibility splays must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained for the ir intended purpose at all times. Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 5) No part of the development must be brought into use until the vehicle access, parking, manoeuvring and turning areas have been constructed in accordance with the following plans approved under application 23/00197/DISCON unless alternative details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority : Vehicular, Cycle and Pedestrian Access and Parking 09999 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 003 Rev P02; Highways S278 New Entrance GA 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 002 Rev P02; S wept Path Refuse Vehicle 09999 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 004 Rev P01; Swept Path Delivery Vehicle 09999 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 005 Rev P03; Swept Path Fire Tender 09999 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 007 Rev P01. Once created these areas must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained fo r their intended purpose at all times. 6) The following schemes of off - site highway mitigation measures must be completed as indicated below: 1. Uncontrolled crossing northwest of proposed access. Uncontrolled crossing improvements to include: Widening of d ropped kerbs; Removal of existing tactile paving to the back of footway; Tactile paving to be provided for extent of dropped kerbs; Northern footway to be widened and cleared of debris; Existing 'Reduce Speed now' signage to be relocated outside of proposed footway; Existing road markings to be replenished; Additional 'SLOW' road markings to be provided on approach to existing road hump. 2. Vegetation/ debris within Wetherby Road southe rn footway: Clear vegetation/debris and tidy up the general appearance of the footpath. 3. Substandard tactile paving, poor road surface and worn road markings at Wetherby Road/ Abbey Road junction. Junction improvements to include: Wider dropped kerbs either side of junction; Tactile paving to be provided for extent of dropped kerbs and laid to a depth of 1200mm - Road to be resurfaced where necessary; Road markings to be replenished. 4. Substandard crossing facilities at turning head east of Grimbald Bridge. Crossing facilities to include: Dropped kerbs on either side of the turning head to be located along the desire line; Tactile paving to be provided for extent of dropped kerbs and laid to a depth of 1200mm; Amendments to th e footway on the eastern side of the crossing to improve pedestrian desire line to either northern/ southern KR1. 5. Misleading tactile/ substandard tactile paving arrangements at various uncontrolled crossing points east of Grimbald Bridge. Existing tact ile paving layout to be removed as this is misleading for the visually impaired, and replaced with suitable tactile paving/corduroy hazard Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 warning surface arrangements appropriate for shared cycle track/footway crossings. 6. Construction of the approved f ootpath link and associated infrastructure improvements as shown on plan P21094 - 006A dated 3 May 2022. The above highway improvement works must be carried out using an approved NYCC contractor and be completed prior to the proposed development's first occ upation. An independent Stage 2 Road Safety Audit must be carried out in accordance with GG119. Road Safety Audits or any superseding regulations must be included in the submission and the design proposals must be amended in accordance with the recommenda tions of the submitted Safety Audit prior to the commencement of works on site. A programme for the delivery of that scheme and its interaction with delivery of the other identified schemes must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to construction works commencing on site. Each item of the off - site highway works must be completed in accordance with the following engineering details and programme approved under application 23/00589/DISCON unless alternative details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority : H ighways 278 Extent of Works - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 001 Rev P02 Highways 278 Adoption Plan - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 000 Rev P01 Highways 278 New Entrance GA - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 002 Rev P03 Highways 278 Existing Services - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 003 Rev P07 Highways 278 Crossing Upgrades Sheet 1 of 2 - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 004 Rev P02 Highways 278 Crossing Upgrades Sheet 2 of 2 - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 005 Rev P02 Highways 278 Road Markings, Signs & Sight Lines - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 006 Rev P02 Highways 278 Construction Deta ils - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 010 Rev P02 Services Diversions Report, Adlington, January 2023 Stage 2 Road Safety Audit - 610/2022/155/01 Rev 1, 12 November 2022 Stage 2 Road Safety Audit Designers Response, Adlington, December 2022. 7) Unless alternative detai ls have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority construction of the permitted development must be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan Construction Method and Management St atement by Gladman Homes LLP, March 2023. Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 8) Prior to any operations commencing on the site in connection with the development hereby approved (including any demolition work, soil moving, bringing materials onto site, temporary access construction and/or wid ening or any operations involving the use of motorised vehicles or construction machinery), the developer shall implement the agreed specification for root protection area (RPA) and detail (as per FPCR Arboricultural Assessment dated April 2021) fencing in line with the requirements of British Standard BS 5837: 2012 Trees in Relation to Construction - Recommendations, or any subsequent amendments to that document, around the trees or shrubs or planting to be retained, as indicated on the approved plan and f or the entire area as specified in accordance with BS 5837:2012. The developer shall maintain such fences until all development the subject of this permission is completed. 9) The applicant is to retain, throughout the development process, including the prop osed tree planting (as per the approved plans), the arboricultural consultant who is to forward a monthly progress report to the LPA. The progress report is required to demonstrate that the trees are being protected in accordance with the submitted detail, and any approved Method Statement or other documentation, during the course of the development. The retention of the arboricultural consultant will aid in the development process where it applies to trees in all forms eg no dig road, Root Protection Area enforcement and tree planting. 10) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment (ref SHF.1255.004.HY.R.002.G dated December 2021) and the following mitigation measures it details within section 5: Finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 36.55metres above Ordnance Datum (AOD); There is to be no built development within flood zone 3b and no raising of ground levels within flood zone 3. All excess spoil is to be removed from the floodplain and disposed of appropriately; The development shall be constructed with a floodable basement, the sole purpose of which shall be for the storage of flood flows. The basement is to be built in accordance with drawing Nos 09999 - P2 - 215 & 09999 - P2 - 232, should be designed an d built to drain by gravity, and, is to have a soffit of 35.85mAOD. The basement is also to have a floodable volume of at least 600m3. The basement is to be managed and maintained as per Table 5.4 of document SHF.1255.004.HY.R.005.B so that the full flood storage volume remains available for the lifetime of the development. A detailed management and maintenance plan should be agreed with the LPA prior to occupation of the development. 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 development. 11) No building or other obstruction including landsca pe features shall be located over or within: a) 3.5 (three point five) metres either side of the centre line of the public 675 mm diameter sewer i.e. a protected strip width of 7 (seven) metres, that crosses the site; and b) 3 (three) metres either side of the centre line of the public 225 mm diameter sewer i.e. a Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 protected strip width of 6 (six) metres, that crosses the site. If the required stand - off distance is to be achieved via diversion or closure of the sewer, the developer shall submit evidence to t he local planning authority that the diversion or closure has been agreed with the relevant statutory undertaker and that prior to construction in the affected area, the approved works have been undertaken . 12) The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site. The separate systems should extend to the points of discharge to be agreed. 13) There shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development p rior to the completion of surface water drainage works, details of which will have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority . If discharge to public sewer is proposed, the information shall include, but not be exclusive to: i) Evidenc e that other means of surface water drainage have been properly considered and why they have been discounted; and ii) The means of discharging to the public sewer network at a rate to be agreed by the local planning authority in consultation with the stat utory sewerage undertaker. 14) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Phase II Geo - Environmen tal Report SHF.1255.012.GE.R.001.A dated November 2022 by Enzygo Geo Environmental. 15) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority site remediation shall take place in strict accordance with the land contamination remediation strategy contained in the approved Phase II Geo - Environmental Report SHF.1255.012.GE.R.001.A dated November 2022 by Enzygo Geo Environmental. 16) Land contamination remediation of the site shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the Remediation Strategy approved pursuant to condition 15. In the event that remediation is unable to proceed in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy or contamination not previously considered or identified in either the P reliminary Risk Assessment or the Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report is identified or encountered on site, all groundworks in the affected area (save for site investigation works) shall cease immediately and the local planning authority shall be notified in writing within 2 working days. Works shall not recommence until proposed revisions to the Remediation Strategy have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . Remediation of the site shall thereafter be carried o ut in accordance with the approved revised Remediation Strategy. 17) Following completion of any measures identified in the approved Remediation Strategy or any approved revised Remediation Strategy a land contamination Verification Report shall be submitted to the local planning authority . No part of the site shall be brought into use until such time as the remediation measures have been completed for that part of Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 the site in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy or the approved revised Remediatio n Strategy and a Verification Report in respect of those remediation measures has been approved in writing by the local planning authority . Where verification has been submitted and approved in stages for different areas of the whole site, a Final Verifica tion Summary Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . 18) Prior to the commencement of the external construction of the walls of the development hereby approved a scheme containing full details of arrangements for internal air extraction, odour control, and discharge to atmosphere from commercial cooking operations, including any external ducting and flues, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The works detailed in the appro ved scheme 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 agreed beforehand in writing with the local planning authority . 19) Prior to the first occupation of the development a scheme for the minimisation of the effect of light glare on nearby properties shall be submitted to the local planning authority for written approval. The submitted scheme shall include an isolux diagram showing the predicted luminance in the vertical plane (in lux) at critical locations on the boundary of the site and at adjacent properties. The approved works shall be completed be fore any lighting equipment to which this approval relates to is operated and shall be maintained during such operation for the life of the development. 20) Before the development is first brought into use, all works which form part of the sound attenuation s cheme as specified in the Noise Report, dated April 2021, reference GM10886, Version 004 V1 Final and produced by Wardell Armstrong : a) Shall be completed; and b) Written evidence to demonstrate that the specified noise levels (including the noise design criteria for all mechanical plant and extraction systems) have been achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . If it cannot be demonstrated that the noise levels specified in the aforementioned Noise Report hav e been achieved, then a further scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority incorporating further measures to a chieve those noise levels. All works comprised within those further measures shall be completed and writte n evidence to demonstrate that the aforementioned noise levels have been achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is first brought into use. 21) Unless alternative details have first been sub mitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the development hereby permitted must be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Construction Ecological Management Plan Rev A by FPCR dated 23.02.23 and approved under applicatio n 23/00089/DISCON. All subsequent works on site must be undertaken in accordance with the approved CEMP, which must be Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 incorporated as a biodiversity chapter of the wider site Construction Environmental Management Plan. Species - specific enhancements such a s the provision of faunal boxes must be in place prior to the first occupation of the new building. A copy of the Construction Ecological Management Plan must be available on site and accessible to site operatives at all times during construction. 22) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the development hereby permitted must be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Drainage Strategy and Calculations by Adlington Retirement Living dated December 2022 and the Sustainable Drainage Management and Maintenance Plan by Adlington Ret irement Living dated December 2022. The flowrate from the site shall be restricted to a maximum flowrate of 3.5 litres per second to public sewer for up to the 1 in 100 year event. A 30% allowance shall be included for climate change effects for the lifeti me of the development. Storage shall be provided to accommodate the minimum 1 in 100 year plus climate change critical storm event. The scheme shall include a detailed maintenance and management regime for the storage facility. No part of the development s hall be brought into use until the development flow restriction works comprising the approved scheme has been completed. The approved maintenance and management scheme shall be implemented throughout the lifetime of the development. 23) A detailed scheme for landscaping, including the planting of trees (in broad accordance with the submitted Tree Mitigation Plan drawing no. 8603 - L - 01 Rev G & 8603 - L - 02 Rev G dated 8 May 2021) and or shrubs and the use of surface materials shall be submitted to the local plannin g authority prior to the commencement of any external construction of the walls of the development hereby approved. The scheme shall specify materials, species, tree and plant sizes, number and planting densities and the timing of the implementation of the scheme, including any earthworks required. The landscape scheme is to be implemented the planting season (October to March) after completion of the permitted development . 24) In the event of failure of any trees or shrubs, planted in accordance with any scheme approved by the local planning authority , to survive for a period of five years from the date of completion of implementation of that scheme, such trees or shrubs shall b e replaced by the developer with such live specimens of such species in such number as may be approved by the local planning authority . 25) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the dev elopment hereby permitted must be carried out in strict accordance with the electric vehicle infrastructure strategy and implementation plan as set out in the Electric Vehicle Charge Points Document v2 and the External Works Plan 00000 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 000 Rev P07 approved under application 23/00090/DISCON. The development shall be carried out as approved with charging points installed prior to occupation. 26) Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the installation of the solar panels shall be submitted in writing for the Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 written approval of the local planning authority . The scheme shall include: (a) Details of design and specification of the solar panels; (b) Timing of installation; and (c) Submission of MCS Certificates upon completio n. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. 27) The windows on the permitted development, unless alterative details are submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority , shall have 75mm window re veals. 28) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the development shall be constructed in strict accordance with the materials approved under application ZC23/01543/DISCON. 29) Prior to fir st occupation of the development a Flood Evacuation and Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. 30) Notwithstanding det ails as approved by Condition 2, should any further alterations be considered necessary to levels on site, full details of existing and proposed site levels, finished floor levels and any changes to the surrounding landform must be submitted in writing to the local planning authority and approved prior to any such changes taking place. 31) Prior to first occupation of the development a Parking Management Strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The development sha ll be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Schedule ends.

⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned

Conclusion 24. The proposal accords with the development plan as a whole and thus, f or the reasons given above , I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will gra nt a new planning permission without the disputed condition but substituting others and restating those undisputed conditions that are still subsisting and capable of taking effect. S J Lee

🔗 View on PINS Casework Portal 📋 LPA Ref: ZC23/02201/DVCMAJ

✓ ALLOWED

Appeal Decision 3335717 (Folkestone and Hythe District Council) — 2024-05-01

📍 Folkestone and Hythe District Council LPA code: E07000112 PINS reference: 3335717 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 6 April 20 2 4 by Elizabeth Lawrence BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01.05.2024 Appeal Ref: APP/ L2250/ D / 2 3 /3 3 357 17 La Toppa, She a r Way, Burmarsh, Romney Marsh, TN29 0JJ 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 Mr s Doreen Carmichael against the decision of Folkestone & Hythe District Council . The application Ref 2 3 / 1519 /FH , dated 2 7 September 2023 , was refused by notice dated 6 December 20 2 3 . The development proposed is for the erection of a one bedroom attached annexe . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning p ermission is granted for a one bedroom attached annexe at La Toppa, She a r Way, Burmarsh, Romney Marsh, TN29 0JJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/1617/FH, dated 23/1519/FH, dated 27 September 2023 and the plans submitted with it, subj ect to the conditions set out below. 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following drawings and documents: Bur - 23062 /P 1of 4 Existing & Proposed Plans, Elevations & Location Plan (Received: 27/09/2023), BUR/23062/P 2 of 4 Existing Block Plan (Received: 27/09/2023), BUR/2302/P 3 of 4 Proposed Block Plan (Received: 27/09/2023), BUR/23062/P 4 of 4 Location Plan (Received: 27/09/2023); and Design and Access Statement (Received: 27/09/2023). 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby perm itted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 4) The floor level of the extension hereby permitted shall not be lower than that of the existing dwelling. Pr eliminary matters 2. Since the appeal application was refused the National Planning Policy Fr amework 2021 has been replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework December 2023 (Framework). Whilst the new Framework has introduced a number of changes, they are not material to my consideration of the appeal Appeal Decision APP/ L 2250 / D / 2 3 /3 3 357 17 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 proposal. For the avoidance of any do ubt, I confirm that in this decision I have referred to the new Framework. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. R easons 4. T he Appeal site is situated within the countryside, just to the north of the main built up area of the small settlement of Burmarsh. The appeal site is located adjacent to All Saints Church, which is Grade II* listed and a short distance from The Shepherd & Crook Inn (Inn) , which is grade II listed. Their significance is derived f r o m a combination of their history, public use and architecture. Directly opposite the appeal site are a detached house and a couple of modest sized farm buildings and to north and west the appeal site borders onto the open countryside. 5. The appeal dwelling is centrally located within a large plot which is laid out with areas of formal and informal landscaping and includes numerous trees and a large pond to the rear. The garden is enclosed by mature hedges. The appeal dwelling has a strong sense of uniformity due to its combined width, proportions and detailing. This includes fully hipped roofs , centrally placed dormer windows a nd a shallow front projection that is similar in width to the double garage o n the opposite side of the dwelling. There is a wrap - around single storey extension with a glazed roof along part o f the southern side and rear elevation of the original dwelling. Due to its set back from the front elevation and glazed roof it is seen as visually distinct from the original dwelling. 6. Together and amongst other things polic y HB1 of the Folkstone & Hyt he District Council Places and Policies Local Plan 2020 (PPLP), require proposals to make a positive contribution to their location and surroundings. PPLP Policy HB8 states that ext e n s ions should reflect the scale, proportions, materials, roof line and de tailing of the original building. To maintain the visual quality of the street scene extensions should be subordinate to the building. They should not exceed half the width of the host dwelling or half the depth of the garden. They should also maintain the open character of plots where this is a feature of the street scene. 7. Paragraph 135 of t he Framework has similar objectives. Paragraphs 205, 206 & 208 of the Framework state that when considering the impact of a development on the significance of a designated heritage asset great weight should be given to its conservation. Any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset from development within its setting requires clear and convincing justification. Where a proposal would lead to less t han substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 8. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that when assessing proposals for new dev elopment which affects the setting of a listed building, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving its setting. Appeal Decision APP/ L 2250 / D / 2 3 /3 3 357 17 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 9. PPLP Policy HB 9 allows for annexes in the countryside where they are required to provide care. Attached annexes should be capable of being incorporated into the main house when the need for the annexe ceases. Where attached annexes cannot be attached detached annexes wi ll be permitted, where amongst other things they would be sympathetic and modest in scale to the host dwelling and would have a clear dependency on it. 10. The proposed annexe would be in line with the recessed front building line of the host dwelling and woul d include a hall way that would be linked to the host dwelling . This link would screen the existing wrap - around extension located to the side and rear of the dwelling . As with the original dwelling the proposed roof of the annexe would be fully hipped . It would also be materially lower which would help ensure that the annexe would be visually subservient to the host dwelling. The slightly shallower pitch of the annexe roof would be largely unnoticeable due to linear form the lower hal lway link. It w ould also respect the roof pitch of the existing wrap around extension and the pitched roof outbuilding on the opposite side of the host dwelling. 11. Whilst the width of the annexe would slightly exceed half the width of the original house, along with the p roposed fenestration and external materials it would respect the overall form and appearance of the host dwelling. Accordingly, the modest conflict with PPLP Policy HB1 regarding the width of the annexe would not in itself weigh against the propos al. Due to the proximity and juxtaposition of the proposed annexe, the original dwelling and the existing wrap around extension , the proposed annex e would relate appropriately to the host dwelling. Also, h aving regard to the size and in particular the width of t he plot the resultant dwelling would appear spaciously sited and proportionate to the site. 12. Regarding the need for the proposed annexe, the personal circumstances set out in the appellants appeal statement clearly support the provision of the proposed annexe. Physically and in terms of use the proposed annexe would share the same access and parking area which are located on the opposite side of the dwelling. It would also share the same garden area and there would be direct inter - looking between the p roposed kitchen/living area and the wrap around extension. As a result, there would be a shared dependency between the host dwelling and the annexe. Should the stated need for the annexe cease, having regard to the size, layout and siting of the propose d annexe, it would lend itself to a variety of uses associated with the host dwelling. 13. The proposed annexe and the Inn would be effectively screened from each other by the existing annexe to the side of the Inn and the boundary hedge and trees between t he buildings. 14. The upper part of the rear elevation of All Saints Church is visible over the front boundary hedge of the appeal site. Such views are filtered by the intervening trees and the boundary hedge to the rear of the church. The proposed extensi on would be visible in these views, where it would be seen as part of the host dwelling and would be separated from the church grounds by a treed side garden area. For these reasons, the setting of the above listed buildings would be preserved and the pro posal would not detract from their significance. 15. Finally, the council has suggested the imposition of conditions relating to the use of matching external materials and adherence to the submitted drawings. Appeal Decision APP/ L 2250 / D / 2 3 /3 3 357 17 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 These conditions are necessary to ensure the extension respects the character and appearance of the host dwe lling and for the avoidance of doubt. 16. T h e officer report states that as the site falls within flood zones 2 & 3, the finished floor levels should be no lower than that of the host dwelling. Whilst the submitted drawings appear to show that this is the c ase in the interests of certainty it is a matter that would need to be secured by condition. Finally, I note that the council has suggested an informative relating to the occupancy of the annexe. Informatives are not included in appeal decision s and as p lanning permission would be required for the use of the annexe as a separate dwelling, a planning condition relating to the use of the annexe is not necessary. 17. For these reasons I conclude that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of th e street scene and would comply with PPLP Polic ies HB1 , HB8 and HB9 and paragraphs 135, 205, 206 & 208 of the Framework. Elizabeth Lawrence INSPECTOR

🔗 View on PINS Casework Portal 📋 LPA Ref: 23/1617/FH

✓ ALLOWED

Appeal Decision 3328322 (Somerset Council) — 2024-03-18

📍 Somerset Council PINS reference: 3328322 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - i nspectorate Appeal Decision Inquiry Held on 23 - 25 January 2024 Site visit made on 2 5 January 2024 by Stephen Wilkinson BA BPl DIP LA MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 18/03/20 24 Appeal Ref: APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 Land north of Mudford Road, Yeovil, Somerset Grid Ref: 356250, 118369 The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 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 Yeovil LVA LLP (Land Value Alliance) against Somerset Council. The application Ref : 22/00695/OUT , is dated 15 Ma rch 2022. The development proposed is erection of up to 252 dwellings, public open space (including community orchard and village green ) , woodland planting, ecological buffers, sustainable drainage systems, a biodiverse wetland habitat and other ancillary works . All matters reserved except fo r access. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for the erection of up to 252 dwellings, public open space (including community orchard and village green), woodland planting, ecological buffers, sustainable drainage s ystems, a biodiverse wetland habitat and other ancillary works. All matters reserved except for access subject to the conditions included in the schedule to this dec i sion . Procedural Matters 2. Since the application was submitted South Somerset Council was merged with three surrounding distri c ts to form Somerset Council, a U n i ta ry Authority which commenced operation on 1 st April 2023. Th is decision is based on the policies of the South Somerset Local Plan 2 006 - 28 adopted 2015. 3. The scheme is submitted in ou tline with all matters reserved apart from access. A parameter plan ( 190812 L 02 Rev B ) was submitted with the appeal. I have treat ed this as illustrative only. 4. Given the size of the proposed development the appeal was accompanied by an Environmental Statement as required by Regulation 5(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. 5. Between the time that the Council resolved to oppose the scheme and the start of the appeal process a revised access strategy (23037/PHL/01 Rev E) was agree d between the parties. The changes between the previous strategy considered by the Council and th at before me were present ed at the Inquiry. Given the small - scale nature of the suggested changes , I am sat i sfied that no Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 parties have been prejudiced by this late revision and accordingly my decision is made on this . 6. Following publication of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) on 20 December 2023 I wrote to the main parties for comment. Co mments received have been incorporated int o this decision. 7. The appeal was accompanied by a draft S106 Agr eement. A completed Agreem en t dated 15 February was received following the closure of the Inquiry ; this is referred to later. 8. Finally, t here are a numb er of designated heritage assets surrounding the boundaries of the appeal site. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a statutory duty on decision makers, to have special regard to the desirability of prese rving listed buildings or their setting. Accordingly, I have assessed the impact of the appeal scheme on these buildings and structures later in this decision. Main Issue 9. The Council originally suggested three putative reasons for refusal of the applicat ion which included insufficient information on archaeology of the site , insufficient detail in re s p e ct of the infrast r u c ture required to support the application and the effects of the scheme on the landscape character and appearance of the area . 10. The Council agreed, in advance of the Inquiry that archaeology could be addressed by suggested conditions and that infrastru c ture by a completed S 1 06 Agreement . 11. Accordingly, the outstanding main issue is : The effect of the proposed scheme on the landscape character and appearance of the area . Reasons Landscape character and appearance Landscape effects 12. The appeal site lies on the northern edge of Yeovil and extend s north of Mudford Road towards S ock Lane . Ribbon development on both side s of Mudford Road mark the top of an escarpment above the site . T he site compris es three fields of around 25 ha surrounded by far mland . Yeovil Without sewerage treatment works lies by the northwestern corner of the site . 13. The appeal site does not lie in a v alued landscape as defined by Paragraph 1 80 a) of the Framework. The Coun cil recognise that it has value related to its undulating and undeveloped nature which allows views north from Mudford Road . In contrast the appellant, through the application of adopted guidance 1 identify that the site has a medium value . 14. T he value of the site is derived from its openness with its natural heritage derived from the location of the goyle (a local term for a steep sided wooded valley ) along part of its western edge and a small group of protected trees 1 Landscape Technical Note 02/21 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 towards the southern edge of the site . The absence of footpaths through the site result in a low recreational value and it is not covered by any nature conservation objectives nor does it have any cul t u ral associations . Whilst the northern edge is relatively tranquil t raffic noise and the presence of dwellings along Mudford Road and Stone Lane are experienced across the southern and central parts of the site . For these reasons , I find that the site has a medium value. 15. The site lies in NCA 140 2 , Yeovil Scarplands , characterised as a predomina n t l y rural area which comprises ridges and steep scar p s separating clay vales . These feat u res are identified in the LCA 2 3 Northern Esca r pment Foothills included in the Yeovil Peripheral Landscape S tudy 4 (YPLS) . 16. Whils t the YPLS does not strictly follow the GLVIA 3 5 guidance it is an important material consideration given its assessment of landscape capacity to sustain development. This identifi es the site as lying within LCA2a , an area of high sensitivity to change due to its rural character . However, the study recognises that within LCA2a , in areas where field boundaries and hedgerow trees have been removed as in the appeal site , there is a m edium sensitivity to change . This was agreed by the Council despite their written evidence to the contrary 6 . 17. T he escarpment which in part follows the edge of Mudford Road is not consistent in form with varying levels of steepness and orientation. The site includ es a moderate s lope from around 82metres AoD by Mudford Road to 45met res AoD at its northern edge ; a distance of around 830metres . T his contrasts with the steepness of the slope on the site lying immediately to the west . T he app eal s ite faces outwards towards the open rural character of the Yeo Valley . 18. The parameter plan submitted with t he appeal identifies 252 dwellings located across the site , with a village green on its southern edge by Mudford Road with its northern part used for recreation including for a LEAP 7 , MUGA 8 and orchard with a cascading water feature which would act a s a SUDS 9 . The appeal scheme would involve the removal of a rou nd 180metres of hedgerow from across the site. 19. The appeal scheme would require the creation of development platforms requiring areas of cut and fill. Whilst around 40 % of the appeal site would be occupied by built development would include the MUGA , LEAP and SUDS . The se features would, however , be clearly manmade structures resulting in landscape changes which would be permanent and irreversible . 20. D espite the scale of change resulting from the appeal scheme , the proposed areas of housing would be located away from the steepest slopes lying on the western side of the site where the land falls away to the goyle . Existing w oodland would be extended along the western edge and the proposed areas 2 National Character Area 3 Local Character Area 4 CD3.4a 2008 5 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment , Landscape Institute and Inst it ute for OF Environmental Management and Assessment 6 Mr Potterton XX 7 Local Equipped Area of Play 8 Multi U s e Games Area 9 Sustainable Drainage System Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 o f housing would be parti al ly contained by existing hedgerows, a majority which would be retained and which would be enhanced as part of the mitigation strategy. The net t effect of these changes is that despite its scale the scheme would result in only moderate adverse impacts on the site . 21. Further m ore , given th e comparative size of the appeal site with the NCA in which it lies, there would be n egligible impacts on it and only limited adverse impacts on the Yeo Valley to the north . There would, h owe ver, be moderate adverse impacts on the land to its east and west given the high landscape sensitivity of these two areas . T his could partially be addressed through the proposed mitigation. Visual effects 22. The main parties agreed a set of viewpoints and visual receptors from around the site which were shared on the site visit. The Zone of Theoretical visibility (ZTV) extends to a maximum distance of around 4km to the north of the site but in other directio ns is drawn tightly . This reflects t he natural changes in topography across the area which are important in exposing the receptor to a range of different views of the site. 23. The proposed development as suggested by the parameter plan would include 252 dwe llings located across the site as either houses or apartment b uildings of between 2 - 2.5 storey height (8.5 - 10metres ri d ge height ). The assessment of the vis ual impacts of the scheme was anticipated at a period of fifteen years after completion of the schem e when the proposed landscape mitigation would have started to have greater effect. 24. The parties differ on the significance of effects f or t he occupie r s of those residential properties on Mudford Road which directly face the site . T h e Council identify major adverse effects whereas the appellant consider the se would b e moderate adverse . Given th e fall in levels within the site away from Mudford Road and the suggested mitigation included in the parameter plan in the form of the and additional planting the visual effects would be moderate to major adverse. 25. T he existing hedge along the edge of the footway on Mudford Road varies in height. T he appeal schem e would result in minor adverse effects for pedestrians along that part of the footway close to the junction with Lyde Road . 26. From the residential properties along Mudford Road , the appeal scheme would still allow an appreciation of the wider landscape acro ss the Yeo Valley . This contrasts with the visual impact of frontage development of seven dwellings at Combe Street Lane, Yeovil 10 which was dismissed on appeal because it would have prevent ed an appreciation of the openness of the countryside beyond. In contrast , d espite the marked difference in size between that scheme , the appeal scheme would not prevent appreciat i on of the landscape to the north from the Mudford Road properties . 27. T he site was not viewed from the rear of the residential properties along Stone Lane . The occupiers of these properties, as sensitive receptors , would experience moderate adver se effects . The effects of the scheme are mode rated by the intervening fields and the 10 APP/R3325/W/20/3256703 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 proposed mitigation involving an extension of existing woodland on the east side of the goyle . 28. Given that both Stone Lane and Sock Lane form part of the Monarch s Way , a designated footpath from Worcester via Bristol and Yeovil to Shoreham , I accord walkers a high level of sensitivity. However , in many instances along both these l ane s , views of the site are limited due to either local topography or the height of hedgerows which lie along the route . Th e selected viewpoints over gates and openings represent an exception to the prevailin g kinetic experience of the footpath user . 29. For example, V Pt5 is a gap in the line of houses a t the southern part of Stone Lane. Whilst the southern part of the site c an be viewed this would be only a Sign i ficantly the housing on Mudford Road would in part frame the views of the site at this point and reduce the impact of the appeal scheme . 30. This is a similar relationship to that of the proposed housing scheme at Tintinhull 11 where the existing housing along Thorne Lane on the scarp edge was identified as bei n g dominant. Similarly , t he existing properties on Mudford Road would have the same physic al relationship to the housing proposed for the appeal site. Accordingly, t he effects would be low adverse. 31. In contrast to VPt5 , views from VPt6 located at the end of housing on Stone Lane allow clear views over the central part of the site. Despite the e xtent of views from this VPt the effects would be moderate advers e for walkers given the distance from the lane to the site . 32. V Pt 7 by the access to Stone Farm allows views of the site. However, these are more limited than at VPt6 given that the group of properties surrounding Stone Farm partially block views. For this reason, there would be low adverse effects. 33. VPt8 lies around 150 metres further north with views directly to wards the site. However due to the distance involved , the effects for walkers would be minor adverse. In contrast VPt9 is located be yond the northern edge of the site on S ock Lane by the entrance to the sewerage treatment works, but due to the local topography , the site would not be readily visible resulting in low adverse t o negligible effects. 34. VPt10 located towards the northern end of the ZTV affords a broader view to the site s southern edge. However , t he bulk of the appeal scheme would be hidden by the fol d s in the topography resulting in low adverse - negligible effects . V P t11 located on Ashington Lane would allow views north towards the appeal site which would appear as part of a distan t panorama from where there would be broken views of the proposed housing . The effects would be low adverse. 35. VPt 12 by Sock Cottages looks directly south towards the site enabling views of a large part of the appeal scheme. Its orientation limits the impacts of exi s ting development along Mudford Road on the appeal scheme. This result s in moderate adverse effects for the walker . 36. VPt13 l i es on Sock Hill . F r om this point parts of the site can be seen but framed by the existing properties along Mudford Road which due to their height 11 CD6.6 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 would still be the dominant element in the landscape at this point . This contrasts with the Frome appeal decision where there was no existing development. T he significance of effects from this point would be low adverse. 37. VPt14 lies at the southern end of Sock Lane from where parts of the schem e would be visible. However due to the intervening distance the effects would be low adverse. VPt15 located to the east of the ZTV on Drovers Way which also , allows clear views of the northern and central sections of the proposed scheme . Despite the intervening distance between this viewpoint and the si te , the appeal scheme would be clear ly visible on the approach to Yeovil resulting in moderate adverse effects . 38. From VPts 1 6 and 17 located on the southern edge of Mudford Lane there would be clear views of the northern secti o n of the appeal scheme for drivers and their passengers travelling west wards . The effects from here would be low adverse given the ir kinetic experience , the intervening distance and existing trees . 39. The site at Marston Lane, Frome 12 can be distinguished from the scheme before m e as that site included a more intimate f ield pattern . T here would have been a sig nif i ca nt loss of hedgerows and the proposed housing would have compromise d the ridgeline conflicting with specific policies aimed to prevent skyline development. The appeal scheme before me is significantly different with a different policy context informed to some extent by the outline scheme included in the allocated site at Y V2 13 to the east of the site. Although located in a different Landscape Character Area it presents a new context for assertion that the appeal scheme would represent an isolated f inger of development extending down the escarpment. 40. In summary , I find that the greatest impacts would be experienced by occupiers of those residential properties directly facing the site with lesser effects being experienced by footway users on Mudford R oad. The effects would be limited for walkers Way due to the undulating topography and tall hedgerows which restrict views. In several instances the existing properties along Mudford Road and Stone Lane provide which furt her reduces the impacts of the appeal scheme . Conclusions on Landscape Character and Appearance 41. The Council in its putative reason for refusal identifies a specific conflict with Policies SD1 and EQ2. 42. W hil s t Policy SD1 re - iterates t he statutory basis of planning decisions and the presumption in favour of sustain a ble development P olicy EQ2 requires that local distinc t iveness is to be respected with regard to local context and that landscape character should be preserved and e nhanced. 43. The form of development suggested by the parameter plans would adversely impact on the undeveloped character of the site . These matters could not be fully mitigated . There would be adverse visual effects for the occupiers of residential properties directly overlooking the site but only limited adverse visual impacts for walkers along Monarch Way. 12 APP/Q3305/W/22/3306827 13 ID 3 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 44. For these reasons, I conclude that overall, the appeal scheme would have moderate adverse lands cape effects with limited visual effects but would conflict with Policy EQ2 . Other Matters Somerset Moor and Levels Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar 45. Under Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) as co mpetent authority I am required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment of the development on the basis of its Likely Significant Effects on the Somerset Moors and Ramsar /SPA . 46. The Ramsar /SPA is suffering from excess concentrations of phosphates leading to eutrophication which in turn suppresses the ability of invertebrates and plant life to grow . Natural England require that development with i n the catchment of the Ramsar /SPA which will be served by a wastewater system must demonstrate nutrient n eutrality in line with its published guidance 14 . In response to these concerns the appeal sche me includes a treatment wetland designed as six basins acting as cascading wetlands referred to above which would be located at the northwest edge of the site. 47. This is designed to take the flo w from a small tributary of Oakley Brook which runs along the northwestern edge of the site which w ould be treated by the scheme s SUDS through natural processes including sedimentation and absorption from aquatic plants and then returned to the watercourse. In tu rn this would flow into the Ramsar/SPA as a nutrient free water. Even with the application o of eighty percent , the sche me would produce sufficient mitigation of 24.04kg/pa to offset the 16.69 kg /pa of phosphates per annum anticipated as likely to be generated by the scheme. T here would be an excess of what is required as mitigation of 7.35kg/pa produced by the proposed SUDS scheme. 48. T he proposed measures would mitigate the appeal scheme, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, so that there would be no adverse effect upon the integrity of the Ramsar/SPA. The schem e was developed in collaboration with N atural Engla nd who have confirmed that they are sati s f i ed with the proposed form of mitigation. 49. T he mitigation would be secured and managed by covenants included in the S 106 Agreement. These are consistent with Policy EQ4. 50. I am satisfied that each of these covenants fall within the provisions of Regulation 122 (2) of the CIL Regulations and Paragraph 57 of the Framework. Listed buildings and structures 51. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a statutory duty on decision makers, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting. The Framework 52. ge Assets, Planning Note 3) advises that the setting itself is not a heritage asset. Its importance lies in 14 CD8.1 Nutrient Neutrality Advice 16 March 2022 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset or the ability to appreciate that significance. 53. The re are several listed buildings and a stretch of highway ide n tified by the Turnpike Trusts and a listed milestone located beyond the boundaries of the appeal site. 54. Stone Farm dates from the nineteenth century and is part of a group of historic farm buildings located around 250metres to the west of the appeal site . It has a predominantly rural setting derived from the fields which exten d from the farmhouse to the western side of the goyle and the appeal s ite which lies beyond the goyle . This rural setting is limited in extent by the neighbouring housing on Mudford Road and Stone Lane . 55. The appeal scheme would result in the loss of part of the buil d ing s historic ru r al setting although h arm to its setting would be in part mitigated by the existing tree belt which forms the southern part of the goyle and which it is proposed w ould be enhanced . In terms of the Framework the harm arising would be at the lower end of less than substantial . 56. Sock Hill Cottages , located on Sock Lane are Grade II listed and date from the mid nineteenth century. The y lie in a rel a tively isolated location around 150metres from the appeal site . T he intervening topography mean s that intervisibility between the appeal site and the cottages is limited . Accor dingly, the appeal schem e would not undermine the significan ce of these cottages. 57. Several Grade II listed cottages lie to the north of the appeal site. Given a combination of distance, orientation and t he lack of functional connection t o the appeal site there would be no harm to their setting s ari si ng from the appeal scheme . 58. There is a section of Mudford Road/Mudf o rd Lane extending to the east which under the Yeovil Trust in 1753. The appeal scheme would partially develop its rural setting. However , the effect of these changes would be limited in scale and the degree of harm would be at the lower end of less than substantial. 59. A listed milestone lying due east of the appeal site, dat es from the time parts of Mud ford Road and Mudford Lane were a designated Turnpike. This compris es a h stone pillar with shaped iron plaque with a height of around 0.75 metres . Its significance is its vernacular form and historic siting in providing a way - marking function . Given that the route it relates to would be unaltered, and that the proposed development would not obstruct the functional use of the milestone or alter its rural setting the sche me would not be harmful to this designated heritage asset. 60. The site lies aro und 20km from Glastonbury Tor which is just discernible from within the site on a clear day. Given the distance involved and the size of the appeal site the appeal scheme would not impact on the setting of this historic structure. 61. I am satisfied that these buildings and structure s do not have any direct historical relationship with the appeal site but th at harm would aris e to the setting of Stone Farm an d the section of Mudford Lane which had been turnpiked but this would be at the lower end of the scale . The extent of harm requires further consideration against the public benefits arising from appeal Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 scheme as part of the heritage balance required by Para graph 208 of the Framework . This is considered later in this decision. Infrastructure 62. Interested parties expressed concern over the impact of the proposed scheme on social infrastructure including schools and health facilities. The Communit y Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 and paragraph 57 of the Framework set a number of tests for planning obligations: they must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, be directly related to the development, and be fairl y and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. 63. The completed S106 requires that 35% of the dwellings proposed are secured as affordable housing units local housing needs ; this includes prov ision for First Homes. This provision complies with Policy H3. 64. Other covenants in favour of the Council include the designation of public open space included in the LEAP and MUGA with trigger points for their imple men tation relating to the occupation of h ousing within the scheme. These provisions comply with Policy HW1. 65. The proposed highways works included i n the A ccess S trategy (23037/PHL/01 Rev E) include the provision of controlled and uncontrolled crossing points on Mudford Road and Lyde Road with ext ension s of the footwa ys . These provisions broadly adhere to Policies TA3, TA4 and TA5 which require new development to enable sustainable travel options. 66. The S106 Agreement includes covenants in favour of the Heath Authority of ?428 per dwelling required to increase the capacity of local surgeries. The figures used by the Health Authority are included in formula and I am satisfied provide a rational for the suggested funding package included in the S106 Agreement. This accords with Policy SS6. 67. Other covena nts in favour of the Council include financial contributions of ?721.18 per dwelling towards an off site changing room and ?394.52 per dwelling towards off site playing pitches. Covenants require commuted sums towards maintenance costs of changing rooms (? 239.47 and ?58.02 per dwelling towards playing pitches and changing rooms respectively). A further ?61.62 is to be allocated towards youth facilities. These requirements reflect the anticipated number of children likely to be future residents of the appea l scheme and are supported by Policy HW1. 68. Educational covenants in favour of the Council include a contribution to support the likely single child with special education needs of ?101, 216. This would accord with Policy SS6 of the Local Plan. Other covenants in favour of the Council relate to a series of obligations designed to support sustainable travel options. These include a payment of ?3,000 for a t ravel plan fee for monitoring purposes and ?63,000 for safeguarding measures in line with its SPG 15 . These measures are consistent with Policy TA5. 15 Supplementary Planning Guidance Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 69. Other non - financial measures include the implementation of a SUDS in accordance with an agreed specification and maintenance scheme. This would be in line with a Policy EQ1. 70. The S106 Agreement includes a series of obligation regarding measures to mitigate for the harmful effects of phosphates generated by residential development on the Somerset Moors and Levels Ramsar and SPA arising from the appeal scheme. I address this matter in detail in the following section and I am satisfied that these measures are supported by EQ4 of the Local Plan. 71. The S106 includes the provision of infrastructure, which is necess ary , directly required and fairly and reasonably related in scale to this development . I am satisfied that each of these covenants fall within the provisions of Regulation 122 (2) of the CIL Regulations and Paragraph 57 of the Framework. Planning balance T he Development Plan 72. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 73. B oth main parties acknowledge that there is an undersupply of housing land. In these circumstances there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development as defined by the Framework. The test included in Paragraph 11d)ii. of the Framework applies to this case and requires that any adverse i mpacts of the appeal scheme would have to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. 74. T he fact that policies are deemed as out of date does not mean that they carry no weight. To carry weight policies must be consistent with the Framework, as e xplained in Paragraph 2 25 , which amongst other things, states that the closer that local policies are to those in the Framework, the greater weight that may be given to them. As such it is perfectly possible for policies which are deemed out of date by rea son of an inadequate land supply to still carry significant weight. 75. The single putative reason for refusal that remains between the parties identifies conflict with P olicies SS1, SS5, SD 1, YV 1, YV2 and EQ2. I regard these as the most important policies for the determination of this appeal. 76. These p olicies are inter - related , with Policy SD1 broadly neutral in scope as it reit erates S38 (6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 in how planning decisions sh ould be taken. Policy SS1 direct s housing de v elopment towards Yeovil as the main settlement. Policy S S5 a mplifies Policy SS1 by directing housing to within the urban framework of the town an d towards two Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUE s ) . Policy YV1 amplifies th ese policies directing 5 , 876 dwellings to within urban framework and 1 , 565 dwellings towards the SUEs . 77. In directing development to Yeovil or its planned extensions these policies are co nsistent with the policies of the Framework which support sustainable development . Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 78. Polic y EQ2 sets out a range of cr iteria against which development proposal s will be considered which is consistent with Paragraph 180b) of the Framework which recognises the intrinsic value of the countryside . Policy YV2 s ets out requirements for each of the SUEs but outside the SUE is not relevant to the issues raised by this appeal. 79. The appeal scheme conflicts Policies SS1 , SS5, YV1 and EQ2 being located outside Yeovil located within a SUE . The scheme results in adverse landscape and visual effects . 80. Accordingly , g iven the degree of consisten cy which I find between these policies and the Framework I accord considerable weight to the conflict be tween the appeal scheme and the pol i cies of the development plan when considered overall . Material Considerations 81. Set against th is conflict are a range of important material considerations including the pol i cies of the Framework which weigh in favour of the appeal scheme . Housing 82. Of s tent failure over the last eight years 16 to maintain a 5 year housing land supply which according to the Council is currently at around three years 17 alt hough the appellant identify that it is actually just below this figure at 2.9 years. T his i s a significant and chronic shortfall , even acknowledged as such by the Council 18 . 83. The appellant 19 supplied evidence, uncontested by the Council , that housing supply has undermined the delivery of affordable housing . Since 2006 this has averaged at around 167 affordable dwelling per annu m (ADPA) well short of the anticipated target of 227 ADPA. The app ellant cites this shortfall as leading to a serious homelessness prob lem in Yeovil 20 . This was not contested by the Council. 84. The inclusion within the appeal scheme of 164 market and 88 affordable homes would partially address these matters in line with th e policies of the Framework and are theref o re accorded significant weight. Local Economy 85. The appeal scheme would have particular economic benefits derived from construction estimated at between 605 - 781 jobs . 21 . This figure was not contested by the Council. 86. Other economic benefits could be derived from the spending power of the new residents living in the appeal scheme. These would be significant because despite its location beyond the urban framework of Yeovil , the site lies within 16 SoCG Housing Land Supply 17 M s Tadman presented oral evidence to the Inquiry that f ollowing publication of the Framework in December buffer reduced supply to between 2.98 - 3. 1 comp a red to 3.29 years supply 18 Ms Tadman in Chief 19 Mr Kendrick PoE 20 Mr Kendrick PoE 21 Mr Kendrick PoE Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 walking distance of local shops and bus services affording access to the centre 22 . 87. F o r the s e reasons I accept that the appeal scheme w ould benefit the local economy in line with P aragraph 8 5 of the Framework which I accord significant weight. Location 88. Assessment 23 identifies that it is sufficiently close to existing shops and other services allowing for the implementation o f a travel plan included in the S106 Agreement. This could support access to shops and services by a range of modal choice . This would limit the generation of private transport consistent with Paragraph 109 of the Framework . 89. I accord this matter moderate weigh t . Phosphate Mitigation 90. The proposed phosphate mitigation included would generate around 7. 35kg surplus to that required for the appeal scheme. T h is support the development of additional housing which in turn could further address the Autho r chronic housing undersupply. 91. However , whilst there would be some value to the credit in how it may be used to partially overcome a local constraint on housing supply the critical matter is how the phosph ate mitigation meets the tests included in Paragra p h 57 of the Framewor k for this scheme. The fact that this exceeds what is necessary for the appeal schem e has value but not the degree to which the appellant accords it. 92. For this reason, I accord only moderate weight to this matter . Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) 93. The appeal site would thro ugh the suggested mitigation result in a BNG of around 24%. However, there is no requirement for this scheme to deliver a Biodiversity Net Gain of just 10% given th e date of submission of the original application for planning permission . The fact that the re would be an anticipated BNG as suggested by Paragraph 186d) of the Framework is noted as a benefit of the scheme to which I accord moderate weight. Heritage B ala nce 94. The heritage assets include the listed buildings and structures around the appeal site that need consideration in the Heritage Balance. 95. I find that the appeal scheme would lead to less than substantial harm to the s etting of Stone Farm and length of as designated heritage asset s . T he harm would be less than substantial and lies within the low range of that scale of harm and accordingly, I find that the extent of harm would be overcome by the social , economic and environmental public ben efits included in the appeal scheme. These includ e the provision of market and affordable 22 CD 4.3e 23 CD4.3e Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 housing, job creation and increased spending power and improvements in biodiversity. in a locat ion which could enable access to shops and services by a choice of transport mode s . Conditions 96. I have considered the suggested conditions in light of the related discussion at Planning Practice Guidance. The condi tions and wording set out in the schedule below reflect that discussion, although I have amended a number to make them more concise, precise and enforceable. 97. In addition to the standard conditions relating to outline schemes, it is necessary , in order to provide certainty, to identify the plans to which the decision relates, but only insofar as they relate to the matter of access (Conditions 1 - 4) . 98. The parameter plan of the proposed scheme informed the evidence to the Inquiry. In order to ensure that the d evelopment would not give rise to environmental or other impacts any greater than those already assessed within the Environmental Statement and other evidence, a condition is necessary to secure compliance with those parameters ( Condition 5 ). 99. Other condit ions are imposed to ensure Highway Safety (6 and 7) in line with Policy TA5. I have deleted Condition 6, as originally drafted, as this is covered in Condition 7 as the installation of cycle parking can be addressed through the submission of details for ea ch phase of development. I have imposed Condition 8 in respect of construction management activities to protect highway safety. 100. Given the environmental importance of Phosphate Mitigate (Condition 9), I have imposed a planning condition to ensure the del ivery of the scheme of mitigation required to address the phosphates likely to arise from this scheme. 101. In order to protect the living conditions of surrounding properties I have imposed Condition 10 in respect of the requirements for a construction manage ment plan to minimise the impact of construction activities. 102. In accordance with Paragraph 167 of the Framework , details of a sustainable surface water drainage scheme are required (Condition 11) , together with details for it s management . Th is is essential to ensure that the scheme continues to perform as intended, in order to avoid pollution and to prevent increased risk of flooding. 103. Given the potential archaeological interest of the site, further on - site evaluation is required, pursuant to Paragraph 200 of the Framework (Conditions 12 and 13). I have also imposed a Condition 14 in respect of the location of dwellings in relation to the cascading water features (REF: 190812 SK 007) given the potential for fly infestation derived from the location of the se werage treatment works on the north western edge of the appeal site . 104. I have not imposed the suggested condition requiring the submission of a landscaping scheme, since landscaping is one of the reserved matters and any scheme would, by virtue of one of the other conditions, need to comply with a strategic landscape plan to be submitted. Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 Conclusions 105. Whilst I accord significant weight to the conflict between the most important policies and the appeal scheme the actual harms arising are limited in scale and extent . Furthermore , the schem e includes a range of benefits which outweigh the harms arising . 106. T he Council s the central importance of Yeovil. However, the landscape surrounding Yeovil includes a sign i f i cant array of con s tra int s 24 which include historic parks and gardens, flood risk areas and local wildlife sites which limit the potential for its growth as required by policy . The appeal scheme would allow development on land which has a moderate sensitivity to change and whilst its development would result in some adverse impacts these would be limited in extent . 107. There has been a chronic shortfall in ho using land in recent years and the appeal schem e would increase the supply of both market and affordable housing. 108. Furthermore, d espite the location of the site outside the urban framework of Yeovil it lies sufficiently close to shops and services to allow access by a range of transport modes. This moderates the degree of conflict which I find between the appeal scheme and the settlement policies. 109. T he appeal schem e would lead to economic benefits through employment opportunities and increased spending power in shops and services. Other benefits include the increase in BNG and improvements to woodland. 110. consistently raised by interested parties , I find that the Access Strategy would serve to mitiga te concerns over existing highway safety issues through controlled and uncontrolled crossing points and additional footway s . The Highway Authority had no objection to the scheme. 111. loss of BMV agricu lt u r al land the surrounding area includes large tracts of Grade 1 and 2 land . The economic arguments in favour of retention are outweighed by th e benefits arising from its devel opment. 112. Paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework requires that where the most important policies are out of date that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when ass essed against the Framework when taken as a whole. 113. I conclude that the benefits of the appeal scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm identified when assessed against the policies of the Development Plan, when taken as a whole. As su ch the proposed sustainable development. 114. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted. Stephen Wilkinson , INSPECTOR 24 CD6. 4 S l ides for officer presentation on YV2 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 Sc hedule of Conditions 1. The development to which this p ermission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. 2. Application(s) for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority be fore the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 3. Approval of the details of the (a) layout (b) scale (c) appearance and (d) landscaping of the site (hereinafter called the reserved matters) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Au thority before any development is commenced and the development shall be carried out as approved. 4. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan (Ref: 190812 L 01 02 A) Access Plan (Ref: Ref: 23037/PHL/01 Rev E) 5. The reserved matters applications shall be in accordance w i th the approved parameter plan (ref: 190 812 SK007 C) in respect of land use and building heights. 6. The proposed roads, including footways and turning spaces where applicable, shall be constructed in such a manner as to ensure that each dwelling, before it is occupied, shall be served by a properly consolidated and surfaced footway and carriageway to at least base course level between the dwelling and existing highway. 7. No development on the elements listed below shall commence until the following information h as been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For this purpose, plans and sections, indicating as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Plann ing Authority: a) estate roads b) footways c) tactile paving d) cycleways e) retaining walls f) vehicle overhang margins g) visibility splays h) carriageway gradients i) drive gradients j) car, motorcycle and cycle parking k) hard and soft structural land scape areas, l) pedestrian and cycle routes and associated vehicular accesses and crossings, m) all new junctions, n) proposed levels o) bus stops and lay - bys or alternative facilities, p) highway drainage Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 q) swept path analysis for a vehicle of 11.4m length r) central pedestrian reserves, bollards and lighting, and s) an estate street phasing and completion plan setting out the development phases and completion sequence by which the estate streets serving each phase of the development will be completed . The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the approved estate street phasing and completion plan. 8. No development shall commence, including any demolition works, until a construction management plan or constru ction method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved plan/statement shall be adhered to throughout the demolition/construction period. The plan/statement shall provide for: a) A construction pro gramme including phasing of works; b ) 24 hour emergency contact number; c ) Hours of operation; d ) Expected number and type of vehicles accessing the site: - Deliveries, waste, cranes, equipment, plant, works, visitors; - Size of construction vehicles; - Th e use of a consolidation operation or scheme for the delivery of materials and goods; - Phasing of works; e) Means by which a reduction in the number of movements and parking on nearby streets can be achieved (including measures taken to ensure satisfactor y access and movement for existing occupiers of neighbouring properties during construction): - Programming; - Waste management; - Construction methodology; - Shared deliveries; - Car sharing; - Travel planning; - Local workforce; - Parking facilities for staff and visitors; - On - site facilities; - A scheme to encourage the use of public transport and cycling; f) Routes for construction traffic, avoiding weight and size restrictions to reduce unsuitable traffic on residential roads; g) Locati ons for loading/unloading, waiting/holding areas and means of communication for delivery vehicles if space is unavailable within or near the site; h) Locations for storage of plant/waste/construction materials; i) Arrangements for the turning of vehicles, to be within the site unless completely unavoidable; j) Arrangements to receive abnormal loads or unusually large vehicles; k) Swept paths showing access for the largest vehicles regularly accessing the site and measures to ensure adequate space is availab le; l) Any necessary temporary traffic management measures; m) Measures to protect vulnerable road users (cyclists and pedestrians); n) Arrangements for temporary facilities for any bus stops or routes; o) Method of preventing mud being carried onto the hi ghway; Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 p) Methods of communicating the Construction Management Plan to staff, visitors and neighbouring residents and businesses. 9. Details of the proposed Constructed Treatment Wetland, as referenced in shall be provided with the first Reserved Matters Application, demonstrating the design effectiveness of the wetland in re moving the required phosphorus budget to ensure the development achieves nutrient neutrality. The details submitted shall also include a programme of implementation. No development shall commence until these details have been approved in writing by the Loc al Planning Authority and implementation shall be in accordance with the details approved. 10. To prevent pollution during construction, no development shall commence until a scheme for the prevention of pollution has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme should include details of the following: a) Site security. b) Fuel oil storage, bunding, delivery and use. c) Method statement identifying how both minor and major spillage will be dealt with. d) Containm ent of silt/soil contaminated run - off. e) Disposal of contaminated drainage, including water pumped from excavations. f) Site induction for workforce highlighting pollution prevention and awareness. g) Measures should be taken to prevent the runoff of any contaminated drainage during the construction phase. This needs an implementation claus e 11. No development shall commence until a detailed surface water drainage scheme, based on sustainable drainage principles has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage strategy shall ensure that surface water run - off post development is attenuated on site and discharged at a rate and volume no greater than greenfield run - off rates and volumes. Such works shall be carried ou t in accordance with the approved details. These details shall include: - a) Details of phasing (where appropriate). b) Information about the design storm period and intensity, discharge rates and volumes (both pre and post development), temporary storage facilities, means of access for maintenance (6 metres minimum), the methods employed to delay and control surface water discharged from the site, and the measures taken to prevent flooding and pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters. c) Any works required off site to ensure adequate discharge of surface water without causing flooding or pollution (whic h should include refurbishment of existing culverts and headwalls or removal of unused culverts where relevant). d) Flood water exceedance routes both on and off site, to require that no part of the site will flood during any storm up to and including the 1 in Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 30 event and that flooding during storm events in excess of this including the 1 in 100yr (plus 40% allowance for climate change) must be controlled within the designed exceedance routes demonstrated to prevent flooding or damage to properties. 12. Bef ore the commencement of the development hereby permitted the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, shall have secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) which has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The WSI shall include details of the archaeological excavation, the recording of heritage asset s identified , the analysis of evidence recovered from the site and publication of the re sults. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved WSI . 13. No building works shall commence until the site archaeological investigation has been completed and post - excavation analysis has been initiated in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Condition 12 and financial provision made for analysis, dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured . 14. No dwellings shall be located within 150m of any permanently wet pond Wetland/ phosphate mitigation defined on the parameter plan (ref: 190812 SK 007 ). END OF SCHEDULE APPEARANCES Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Mr P Robson of Counsel He called M r C Potterton CMLI D irector Potterton Associates Ltd M s R Tad man MRTPI Director of Tadman Planning Consultants Ltd FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr S Choongh of Counsel He called Mr J Berry CMLI , AIEMA , M.Arbor.A Director , Tyler Grange Group Ltd Mr M Kendrick MRTPI Director, Grassroots Planning INTERESTED PERSONS: Ms D Newman Local Resident Inquiry Documents ID1 ID2 ID3 Plan of allocations and permitted sites ID4 Draft S106 Agreement ID5 NCA Yeovil escarpment ID6 Draft conditions ID7 Note on phosphates with Appendix received 25 January 2024 ID8 Council closings ID9 Appellant closings Documents submitted after the Inquiry closed Completed S106 Agreement

⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned

Conclusions 105. Whilst I accord significant weight to the conflict between the most important policies and the appeal scheme the actual harms arising are limited in scale and extent . Furthermore , the schem e includes a range of benefits which outweigh the harms arising . 106. T he Council s the central importance of Yeovil. However, the landscape surrounding Yeovil includes a sign i f i cant array of con s tra int s 24 which include historic parks and gardens, flood risk areas and local wildlife sites which limit the potential for its growth as required by policy . The appeal scheme would allow development on land which has a moderate sensitivity to change and whilst its development would result in some adverse impacts these would be limited in extent . 107. There has been a chronic shortfall in ho using land in recent years and the appeal schem e would increase the supply of both market and affordable housing. 108. Furthermore, d espite the location of the site outside the urban framework of Yeovil it lies sufficiently close to shops and services to allow access by a range of transport modes. This moderates the degree of conflict which I find between the appeal scheme and the …

🔗 View on PINS Casework Portal

✓ ALLOWED

Appeal Decision 3326583 (Dartmoor) — 2024-04-30

📍 Dartmoor LPA code: E26000001 PINS reference: 3326583 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2024 by C Rose BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 April 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/J9497/W/23/3326583 Black Street Farm, South Tawton, Okehampton EX20 2LN 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 Mr Sean MaCaffrey against the decision of Dartmoor National Park Authority. The application Ref is 0217/23. The development is change of use of part of an agricultural building to form a dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use of part of an agricultural building to form a dwelling at Black Street Farm, South Tawton , Okehampton EX20 2LN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 0217/23, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. I have removed reference to the development being retrospective in the description of development in the banner heading above as this is not an act of development. 3. At the time of my site visit the development had been carried out and appeared to accord with the submitted plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on those plans. 4. My attention has been drawn to the planning history for the site that includes the original consent for the cur rent building as a tractor shed 1 , a n application for a Lawful Development Certificate 2 , a Planning Enforcement Order (PEO) issued in June 2022 and subsequent dismissed appeal to the High Court against the PEO in 2023. I also note that the appellant is se eking legal advice regarding a re trial in relation to the PEO and questions the approach of the Authority . W ithin the context of an appeal under section 78 of the Act it is not within my remit to formally determine whether the proposed development is lawful as claimed by the appellant or to determine the legality of the PEO. Main Issue s 5. The main issue s are: whet her the development conserves or enhances the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park , 1 Reference Number 0752/07 2 Reference Number 0577/21 Appeal Decision APP/J9497/W/23/3326583 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for housing, with particular regard to the local development strategy , and whether any harm arising in relati on to the first two main issues is justified Reasons Landscape and scenic beauty 6. F rom the adjacent road only the upper parts of the building and roof are visible through existing boundary planting. F rom the road and access point, the building has an agricultural appearance. 7. W ithin the site, the presence of a front door and associated residential paraphernalia including the presence of garden furniture are visible and provide a sense of arrival at a dwelling . Whil st these features only have a small negative impact on the tranquillity , landscape and scenic beauty of the area over and above the originally consented building and layout , the y do not conserve or enhance the area. Furthermore, there is the possibility of additional residential paraphernalia, for example through a house name, domestic gates, furniture, formal refuse collection points and other structures, should I allow the appeal. While further extensions to the building and external lighting could be prevented through appropriate condition s , it would not prevent the other changes from taking place. 8. T he permanent re sidential occupation of the building and use of the site is for a greater period of the day than that associated with the storage use . Th e residential activity and noise from the appellant and his partner , however minimal, is in addition to noise from the retained use of the other part of the building and associated use of the land . As a result, the development has a small negative impact on the tranquillity of the area. 9. T he rooflights to the building formed part of its original design and are limited in si ze . I acknowledge above that the residential use of the building result s in it s occup ation for a greater extent than its use for storage . However, any lights within the dwelling will not be on at all hours of darkness and given this and the very limited number and size of windows, I do not find the limited additional light spill harmful to the tranquillity of the area or to the dark night sky. 10. Given that the appellant uses the other part of the building for storage and visit ed the site on a daily basis to make honey and attend to his bees prior to the residential use commencing , I do not find there to be a harmful or noticeable increase in vehicular movements accessing or exiting the site. 11. To conclude on this main issu e, the development does not conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park. As a result, the development conflicts with Strategic Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.5 and 2.6 of the Dartmoor Local Plan 2018 - 2036 (December 2021) (LP) . Amongst o ther things, these seek to conserve and enhance the character, quality, tranquillity and natural beauty of the National Park and deliver good design . The proposal is also contrary to the Framework that seeks to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks. Appeal Decision APP/J9497/W/23/3326583 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 Whether appropriate location 12. Strategic Policy 1.1 of the LP states that development should not prejudice the statutory National Park purposes, and that development which complies with the policies in the LP will be considered consistent with the National Park purposes. 13. LP Strategic Policy 1.3 outlines the spatial principles for development . South Tawton is listed under Villages and Hamlets where limited development to meet identified needs of the settlement and its p arish will be acceptable in principle . 14. LP Strategic Policy 3.5 specifically deals with housing in Villages and Hamlets. This states that new housing in Villages and Hamlets will be approved where one or more of the stated criteria apply. These criteria in clude development on small infill sites or previously developed land within the settlement s , development of up to 3 dwellings for local needs custom , self - build housing or affordable housing on previously developed land, use of an existing building or a small infill plot or exceptionally, affordable housing on site within or adjoining the settlement and well related to its existing built form. 15. However, the site is detached from other dwellin gs and bui lt form located a considerable distance from South Tawton, and even further from South Zeal, accessed by narrow winding lan e s with no footpaths or lighting. T he site is therefore outside, and not adjoining, the settlement and is in the countrysid e where occupiers are reliant upon the use of the car . As a result, and even if the development were to represent custom or self - build housing or affordable housing, it does not gain support from LP Strategic Polic y 3.5. Furthermore, in relation to affordable housing, the development is not accompanied by an up - to - date housing needs assessment detailing a current need for affordable housing in the parish or adjoining parish as required by LP Strategic Policy 3.1. 16. The main parties have referred to L P Strategic Policy 2.8 . W ording similar to that contained within the policy is within the first reason for refusal . This policy supports the conversion of redundant historic non - residential buildings in the open countrysi de . It further states that such buildings s hould be of a form, heritage. Although I note that the form of the original building and its structure are not uncommon in a rural landscape, with the building design ed originally to reflect a Victorian farm building, it is relatively new . As a result, for the purposes of the policy that seeks t he conservation of historic non - residential buildings , I do not find that the building is historic , or has a history that is traditional As a result, the development does not gain support from Policy 2.8. 17. I acknowledge that paragraph 8 3 of the Framework supports housing where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities , support local services and that where there are groups of settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Nonetheless, the appeal site is located outside of a settlement and due to the small scale of the development , any b enefit to local services or nearby villages will be very limited. 18. Paragraph 84 of the Framework supports the development of isolated homes in the countryside where development would re - use redundant or disused building s and enhance its immediate setting. The building is located awa y from other buildings and the closest settlement and as such is isolated. However, a s Appeal Decision APP/J9497/W/23/3326583 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 I have found above that the development does not conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park, it does not enhance its immediate setting and as a result does not gain support under paragraph 84 of the Framework . 19. To conclude on th is main issue, the development does not accord with the policies that allow for residential development. The appeal site is not therefore an appropriate location for housing, with particular regard to the local development strategy. As a result, the development is contrary to Strategic Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 3.1 and 3.5 of the LP. The development is also contrary to the Framework where it seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas. ther considerations 20. The appellant was born locally a nd li ves at the appeal dwelling with his partner to whom he provides care . The appellant has set out that his partner has complex health needs that are being met by living on site and advise s that leaving the site would undoubtedly have a detrimental impact on her health. Indeed, the complex nature of his partners health condition and needs have been outlined in supplementary information, through a completed welfare form and corroborated by a letter from an NHS Senior Health Practitioner . 21. The appellant has further advised that finding alternative accommodation has been, and would be , difficult due to their low income , specific housing needs and being at the bottom of the housing list . 22. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reiterates the wel l - established principle that planning permission runs with the land 3 . Where development would not normally be permitted, it may be justified on the basis of who would benefit from the permission, but only in exceptional circumstances. 23. I have had regard t o the equalities implications and associated duties arising. Taking all of this evidence into account, I accept that the appellant s partner has a clear and multi - layered need for accommodation in a detached and peaceful location that the appeal site offers . Furthermore, I accept that stress associated with leaving the appeal premises could be seriously detrimental to her health. I attach very significant weight to the benefits of the location that result from the development 24. The location of the dwelling cause s harm to the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park in conflict with local and national policies. The proposal is also contrary to the local development strategy for the loca tion of housing bringing it into conflict with the development plan as a whole. 25. However, I find that it has been demonstrated that the circumstances in this case are exceptional with the needs of the appellant and his partner attracting very significant weight . As a result, I am satisfied that the other material considerations in this case clearly outweigh the conflict with the development plan and the harm to the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park to which I give great weight . 3 Paragraph : 015 Reference ID:21a - 01520140306 Appeal Decision APP/J9497/W/23/3326583 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 Conditions 26. I have had regard to the tests in the Framework in relation to conditions, and the planning conditions suggested by the Council and the appellant . As the development has already commenced, there is no need for the standard time condition . I t is however necessary for a condition to confirm the approved plans in the interests of certainty. 27. In light of the justification of the appeal being based on the exceptional circumstances contrary to the development plan , a personal permission is necessary to restrict occupation of the dwelling to the appellant and his partner only. In relation to this, a co ndition is required to ensure that when the premises cease to be occupied by the appellant and his partner, the use ceases with a ll residential materials and equipment removed. 28. Further conditions are necessary to ensure that all external windows are constructed from timber , to ensure that no external lighting is installed and to remove permitted development rights for further extens ions to the building or for the construction of other structures . These are all required in the interests of protecting the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park. 29. Further conditions are proposed by the Council to ensure the submission of details to mitigate flood risk and foul drainage within three months o f the date of permission due to the location of the parking, turning and access to the site falling within Flood Zones 2 and 3. However, the dwelling falls within Flood Zone 1 with the parking, turning and access to the site previously servi ng the agricultural building. As a result, the dwelling is not at risk of flooding and there is no greater risk of flooding from the parking, turning and access and the two conditions are not therefore necess ary or reasonable . Conclusion 30. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed . C Rose INSPECTOR ***SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS*** 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan, Drawing Number 001/277 As Proposed and Drawing Number BSF - 1 Block location plan. 2) The occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted shall be carried on only by the following: Mr Sean MaCaffrey and Jenny Knode. 3) When the premises cea se to be occupied by those named in condition 2 , the use hereby permitted shall cease and all materials and equipment brought on to the premises in connection with the use shall be removed . 4) Notwithstanding the drawings hereby approved, all external windows in the development hereby permitted, shall be of timber construction and shall at all times thereafter be retained as timber framed windows. Appeal Decision APP/J9497/W/23/3326583 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 5) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) O rder 2015 or any Order revoking and re - enacting that Order with or without modification, no material alterations to the external appearance of the building shall be carried out and no extension, building, enclosure, structure, erection, hard surface, swimm ing or other pool shall be constructed or erected in or around the curtilage of the dwelling hereby permitted, and no windows or roof lights other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be created, formed or installed, without the prior w ritten authorisation of the Local Planning Authority. 6) There shall be no external lighting installed or used in association with the development hereby approved.

⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned

In relation to this, a co ndition is required to ensure that when the premises cease to be occupied by the appellant and his partner, the use ceases with a ll residential materials and equipment removed. 28. Further conditions are necessary to ensure that all external windows are constructed from timber , to ensure that no external lighting is installed and to remove permitted development rights for further extens ions to the building or for the construction of other structures . These are all required in the interests of protecting the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park. 29. Further conditions are proposed by the Council to ensure the submission of details to mitigate flood risk and foul drainage within three months o f the date of permission due to the location of the parking, turning and access to the site falling within Flood Zones 2 and 3. However, the dwelling falls within Flood Zone 1 with the parking, turning and access to the site previously servi ng the agricultural building. As a result, the dwelling is not at risk of flooding and there is no greater risk of flooding from the parking, turning and access and the two Conclusion 30. For the reasons given abov…

🔗 View on PINS Casework Portal

✓ ALLOWED

Appeal Decision 3332607 (North West Leicestershire District Council) — 2024-03-15

📍 North West Leicestershire District Council LPA code: E07000134 PINS reference: 3332607 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Hearing held on 5 March 2024 Site visit made on 4 March 2024 by Ben Plenty BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 March 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/G2435/W/23/3332607 Land a djacent to - Grange Road, Hugglescote, Coalville, Leicestershire LE67 2BT 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 Cade by Homes Ltd against the decision of North West Leicestershire District Council. The application Ref 23/00012/REMM, dated 23 December 2022, was refused by notice dated 25 September 2023. The development proposed is the e rection of 80 dwellings including temporary construction access, parking, pedestrian links and open space to parcel E (reserved matters of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to outline planning permission ref. 13/00956/OUTM). Decision 1. The appeal is allowed , and p lanning permission is granted for the e rection of 80 dwellings including temporary construction access, parking, pedestrian links and open space to parcel E (reserved matters of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to outline planning permiss ion ref. 13/00956/OUTM) at l and a djacent to Grange Road, Coalville, Leicestershire LE67 2BT in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/00012/REMM, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Applications for costs 2. An application for costs has been made by Cadeby Homes Ltd against North West Leicestershire District Council. This is the matter of a separate decision. Preliminary Matters 3. Outline planning permission w as given in 201 6 for a Su s t ain able Urban Expansion (SUE) to the South East of Coalville , for up to 2,700 dwellings. The site . The proposal relates to all Reserved M atters , being access, appearance, landscapi ng, layout and scale . The ou t line approval was subject to a range of conditions, these included the requirement for details of a site masterplan 1 , masterplan statement [July 2022] and vehicular access strategy 2 . These details have been sub sequently approved by the Council and are cons is tent with the Reserved Matters scheme . 1 Site Masterplan Ref: LP2208 - FIR - MP - 0002 rev 11 2 Vehicle Access Strategy, by ADC Infrastructure , 17/8/22 Appeal Decision APP/G24 35/W/23/3332607 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 4. A statement of Common Ground , dated 3 January, has agreed that there is no policy conflict or harm with a broad range of subjects, including design, effect on living c onditions , flooding and biodiversity. In review of the Committee Reports and the associated submitted evidence I see no reason to disagree wit h these comments. 5. During the application cons i deration process the Highway Authority sought confirmatio n that some internal roads had adequate motorist visibility through junctions. This led to layout plan ( P20 - 0512 - DE - 005 - 01) revision R , showing the junctions achieved suitable visibility and satisfied the concerns of the Highway Authority . However, this wa s not formally submitted to the Local Planning Authority and was not therefore the version that was refused, which As the revised drawing provides only technical details and has not altered the proposal , I have not accepted version R and used the revision that was refused in my consideration of the appeal . Main Issue 6. The main issue is the effect of t h e proposed development on pedestrian safety and the resultant ability for future occ u piers to gain access to goods and services safely by means other than the private car . Reasons 7. Grange Road is a semi - rural road recently upgraded in support of the SUE with an improved footpath link into Coalville and a reduced speed restriction of 40mph . The r oad runs through the SUE on an east/west axis , with a range of community services located to the north of the highway . This includ es a medical centre and Baptist church to the north west and Hugglescote Community Centre and Hugglescote Community Primary School to the north east. Furthermore, an emerging local centre and primary school will be delivered as part of the Lower Bardon development to the north of Grange Road. As such, o ccupiers of dwellings within t he appeal site would require a safe cycling and pedestrian route o ver Grange Road, to access local goods and services . 8. There is a n uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point located adjacent to the junction of Grange Road and He m sley Road . This includes a dropped kerb with tactile paving both sides of the highway. The A ppellant s speed survey demonstrates that vehicles travel at an average of 42.9mph (85 th percentile) , travelling just over the speed limit. The traffic survey illustrates that gaps between passing vehicles range from 5.5 seconds , at peak evening periods , to an average of 7.8 seconds through a 12 - hour day - time period. My site visit took place at around 5pm on a working day . Although only offering a snap - shot in time , I was able to observe a similar frequency of traffic flow . The t i me taken for a pedestrian to cross the road would be around 4.8 seconds , based on the width of the road and average walking speeds . This figure , and the A ppellant s survey methodology, was uncontested by the Council at the h earing. Consequently, the existi ng crossing point provides pedestrians with frequent opportunities to cross the road. 9. During consideration of the planning application the Appellant explored whether a signalised pedestrian crossing would be required. National guidance on the assessment of such a need has been covered by a number of documents from DMRB TA68/96, to CD143 and then 1/95. DMRB TA68/96 introduced an Appeal Decision APP/G24 35/W/23/3332607 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 assessment that multiplied the volume of t raffic and pedestrians crossing a given road to determine whether demand existed for a signalised or zebra crossing (known as the PV 2 assessment). Although Transport Note 1/95 , was withdrawn in 2019 , this identified th at a simple calculation alone does not provide a sufficiently robust assessment . This is as it does not account for local circumstances including road crossing times, recorded accidents and the character and context of the road . 10. T he Highway Authority employ s an enhanced PV 2 calculation that r equires additional factors t o be taken into account. At the h earing, the Appellant provided a spreadsheet (Doc B) that populated the te m plate found at appendix This shows that enhanced factors , includ ing accident data, waiting times , speed limit and locational factors (such as whether the road divided a substantial community ), can be considered. This appears to provide a broad and robust method to such assessment. The Appellant has shown that this calcula tion resulted in a final score of 0.42. At the h earing this figure was adjusted to account for the GP surgery in the vicinity , creating an agreed and slightly higher score of 0.49. 11. The enhanced PV 2 calculation can be applied to a table produced by the High way Authority. This table shows scores that range from no action , to the need for uncontrolled measures (0.4 - 0.6) , a zebra crossing (0.6 - 0.9) or a signalised crossing (0.9 or higher) . In this case , the enhanced PV 2 score demonstrate s that the threshold f or a signalised crossing h as not been met , a conclusion shared by the Highway Authority. 12. During my visit I noted that pedestrians crossing from north to south had slight ly impeded visibility when looking right , due to the curvature of the road and as the road reced e s into a dip as it passes under the bridge . At the h earing, the Appellant provided a drawing , showing th e visibility splays and photograph ic view s to the right . The hedge line, just beyond the highwa y boundary, obstructs the distant views of approaching cars after about 86 metres . Although the hedge sh ould be maintained and kept cut back, such maintenance cannot be relied upon , and this could obstruct distant views of approaching vehicles. As such, th e existing visibili ty splay could become reduce to around 71.5 metres. Th is compares to published stopping distances 3 of 36 metres for vehicles travelling at 40mph and 53 m etres for vehicles travelling at 50 mph . This illustrates that motorists would have ample time to slow down even if a pedestrian had started to cross the road . 13. T h e reduced pedestrian sightline to the right would result in some, albeit limited, harm to pedestrian safety. The Appellant proposes the addition of a vehi cle activated speed control sign on Grange Road , to warn motorists of excessive speed . I t was agreed by main parties at the hearing that such a measure would have a positive effect on highway safety . Consequently , the identified harm to pedestrian safety w ould be reduced through the installation of a speed control sign . As such, with this measure in place and in taking account the context of the crossing point and the character of local traffic, I am satisfied that pedestrians would be able to undertake a safe crossing . 14. Furthermore, the Way Finding Strategy (approved as part of the outline application) sho ws that the primary pedestrian and cycle route over Grange Road makes use of the materials railway bridge. This is adjacent to the site and 3 The Highway Code Appeal Decision APP/G24 35/W/23/3332607 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 access is gained by a set of steps , the route towards the bridge is curre n tly loose gravel . The access onto the form er minerals railway and the route towards the bridge, is required to be improved by condition 27 of the outline approval. A further condition could be imposed to secure full details of this route and to ensure the delivery of a ramp to aid wheelchair and p ushchair access. As this route is identified as the primary pedestrian/cycleway across Grange Road, and is proposed to be further enhanced, this provides a good quality alternative route avoiding the need to directly cross Grange Road . 15. As a result, taking the above points together, the Appellant has demonstrated that a zebra or signalised crossing would not be required. Furthermore, alternative appropriate means exist to cross Grange Road by using the former railway bridge . As a result, there is no justifi able need for the development to deliver an enhanced crossing over Grange Road . I am further co g nisant that the Highway Authority identifie d 4 that it would have highway safety concerns if a signalised crossing were installed here as due to insufficient demand , motorist would not readily anticipate a need to stop. 16. Accordingly, future occupiers would gain access to goods and services safely by means other than the private car from the site and the proposal would have no demonstrable effect on pedestrian safety . As such, the proposal would comply with polic y IF4 of the North West Leicestershire Local Pl an [ 2021 ] and policy T1 of the Hugglescote and Donington le Heath Neighbourhood Plan [ 2021 ] . These seek, among other matters, for development to make safe and accessible connections to the transport network, including by non - car modes and make improvement to pedestrian and cycle routes where appropriate. Other Matters 17. Interested parties have raised concern that the proposal is in conflict wit h the outline approval as it does not show a vehicular access onto Grange Road. The original Way Finding Strategy, submitted in support of the outline application , showed that the a ppeal site (p arcel E1) would be directly accessed onto Grange Road. Nonetheless, t he approved Masterplan , its associated Statement and the Vehicle Access Strategy , approved in compliance with conditions of the outline approval, exclude the originally plann ed access onto Grange Road via Western Avenue . This followed the evolution of the access strategy taking into account site condition s which reduced the quantity of development proposed alongside the railway embankment and removed Western Avenue . The access to the site , via Lovett Close and He ms l e y Road , has been found to be suitable to accommodate the additional traffic of the appeal site . This arrangement is supported by the Highway Authority , and I see no reason , within the submitted evidence, to disagree with these findings . 18. During the hearing the discussion included the quality of the route along the former railway line and especi a l l y the need to use steps to gain access. The Appellant stated that it is intended to adapt the steps to include a ramp to enable easier access for wheelchair users , pushchairs and cyclists. Improvements to th is route has been secured in general terms by conditions of the outline approval and in conditions suggested by the Council for the current proposal . A lthough t he suggested text excludes reference to ramps these could be included in the text to secure an improve access. 4 Comments of Highway Authority, 20 th May 2023 Appeal Decision APP/G24 35/W/23/3332607 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 19. Th e route , over Grange Road using the railway bridge, is identified in the Way Finding Strategy as the primary route over the r oad . By b eing upg raded , by new surfacing and ramps, this would provide a safe and accessible route over Grange Road , for the . 20. Concerns have been raised by interested parties with respect to construction vehicles gaining access to the site a nd construction noise disturbance . Access into the site during construction is proposed to take place via a direct access onto Grange Road. T he Appellants have stated that drivers will be instructed to only tu r n right when leaving the site and that a banks man will be in place to direct all delivery vehicles . This would create a safe delivery arrangement, a conclusion shared by the Highway Authority . 21. In terms of noise effects, some residents have raised concerns that noise levels during construction would be high . The closest residential properties are within phase 1, adjacent to the appeal site along Lovett Close and Peace Close , but these are separated from the site edge by a road and footpath. Noise disturbance could be largely mitigated by the im position of a condition requiring compliance with the Construction Traffic Management Plan and noise levels would largely be confined to daytimes only. These factors, combined with the temporary nature of the construction works would result in limited dist urbance being caused to adjacent residential occupiers. 22. It has been reported by interested parties that the southern part of the appeal site floods, this has been illustrated by submitted photographs. The southern part of the site is close to the River Sen se and its floodplain includes land close to the appeal site. The Council has stated that the originally submitted Flood Risk Assessment for the SUE demonstrated that the appeal site was within flood zone 1 (least likely to flood). Furthermore, matters of drainage and flood risk are subject to conditions associated with the outline approval . T he Council has confirmed that the drainage solution for the proposed estate is capable of meeting the its design Guidance SPD. I also note that the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority have raised no objection to the scheme. Conditions 23. I have considered the use of conditions in line with the guidance set out in the suggested conditions into consideration and impose most of these with some amendments and adjustments for clarity as discussed during the hearing . 24. I have imposed the standard condition with respect to approved plans as advised by the PPG for clarity and certainty [condition 1]. Conditions are necessary with respect to landscaping , hard surfaces , transition strips , external materials, boundary treatment , protection of boundary trees and hedges , levels , lighting , details of eaves , ve rges, windows and doors , utility box colours , street name plates and feature entrance walls in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and to ensure the development complies with the approved design code [ 2, 3 , 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 , 9 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 21 and 27 ]. It is also required for the window and chimney details and bin/recycling store details , to be implemented as agreed in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and to compl y wit h the approved design code [18 and 19] . 25. It i s also necessary to require details of cycle/pedestrian links, the provision of a pedestrian crossing over Lovett Close and a scheme for the treatment and Appeal Decision APP/G24 35/W/23/3332607 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 maintenance of the former mineral railway to ensure the scheme provides suitable provision of pedestr ian and cycle access to and within the site [10, 11 and 13]. It is also necessary for the scheme to include s igning and waymarking in the interests of the safety and security of users of the public right of way [12]. A condition would also be required to ensure that the on - plot car parking is provided to prevent overspill parking in the interests of highway safety [14]. 26. C ondition s would also be required for details of bin/recycling points to be shown and signage for routes into shared driveway roads to ensure the scheme would function well [20 and 22 ]. C ondition s for the installation of the access arrangements around entering and leaving the site , construction woks to comply with the approved Traffic Management Plan , the scheme to comply with the Travel Plan and a speed control sign to be installed , are required in the interests of highway safety [23 , 24 , 25 and 26 ]. Conclusion 27. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed subject to the imposition of conditions. Ben Plenty INSPECTOR APPEARANCES For the Appellant : M s El e anor O verton - Director Pegasus Group Mr David Cummins - Director ADC Infrastructure Ltd Mr Lo u is Massarella - Cadeby Homes Ltd For the Council: Mr James Knigh t ley - Principal Planning Officer , North West Lei ce stershire District Council Mr Nic holas Jones - Hill - Technical Director Waterman Interested parties: Councillor David Wood Hugglescote & D.L.H Parish Council Additional documents Doc A: South East Coalville - Way F inding Strategy (original version for outline application ) Doc B: Pedestrian Crossing facility, Me t hod of Assessment Summary Sheet submitted to Highway Authority Doc C: Existing uncontrolled crossing pedestrian visibility splays , drawing : 3103 - ADC - ZZ - XX - DR - Z - 001 S1 P01 Doc D: Ma s terplan Rev 11 Doc E: Masterplan Statement V19 Doc F: Vehicular Access Strategy Rev 12 Appeal Decision APP/G24 35/W/23/3332607 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 Schedule of Conditions 1) The proposed development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following plans, unless o therwise required by a condition of this approval: - Site location plan (P20 - 0512_DE_001_A) - Planning Layout (P20 - 0512_DE_005_01_Q) - Presentation Layout (P20 - 0512_DE_005_03_Q) - Materials Plan (P20 - 0512_DE_006_01_F) - Boundary Treatments Plan (P20 - 0512_D E_007_01_H) - Indicative Site Sections (P20 - 0512_DE_010_D) - Parking Plan (P20 - 0512_DE_012_01_C) - House Type Pack (P20 - 0512_DE_G200_D) - Site Access Junction (ADC3103 - DR - 004 Rev P3) - Temporary Construction Access Visibility Splay Long section Layout (ADC 3103 - DR - 005 Rev P1) - Proposed landscaping (P22 - 0512_EN_0001_C_0001, P22 - 0512_EN_0002_E_0001, P22 - 0512_EN_0002_E_0002, P22 - 0512_EN_0003_C_0003, P22 - 0512_EN_0003_E_0001 and P22 - 0512_EN_0003_E_0002) 2) None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied u ntil such time as a timetable for the implementation of the landscaping scheme shown on drawing nos. P22 - 0512_EN_0001_C_0001, P22 - 0512_EN_0002_E_0001, P22 - 0512_EN_0002_E_0002, P22 - 0512_EN_0003_C_0003, P22 - 0512_EN_0003_E_0001 and P22 - 0512_EN_0003_E_0002, to gether with a strategy for its long - term management, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed timetable (or in accordance with any alternative sch eme or timetable first submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the management strategy. 3) Any tree or shrub planted pursuant to Condition 2 above or Conditions 11, 13, 20 or 27 below which may die, be removed or become seriously damaged shall be replaced in accordance with the agreed landscaping scheme (or any alternative scheme first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) in the first available planting season there after. 4) Notwithstanding the submitted details, nor Condition 1 above, no development in respect of the erection of any dwellings shall take place above damp proof course until such time as a scheme of materials to be used in the construction of all hard sur faces (including all access roads, threshold and transition strips, footways, pedestrian routes, dwelling mounted rainwater goods, bin stores, any retaining walls/structures, drives and parking / manoeuvring areas (including parking space demarcation, wher e applicable)), together with a timetable for its implementation, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and timetable. 5) Notwithstanding the sub mitted plans, nor Conditions 1 and 4 above, no development in respect of the construction of any of the roads hereby permitted shall take place until such time as a scheme for the provision aterials and a timetable for its implementation) has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed scheme and timetable. Appeal Decision APP/G24 35/W/23/3332607 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 6) Notwithstanding the submitted details, no r Condition 1 above, unless the dwellings hereby approved are erected in accordance with the scheme of external materials shown on drawing no. P20 - 0512_DE_006_01_F, no development in respect of the erection of any dwellings shall take place above damp proo f course unless in accordance with a scheme of external materials to be used in the construction of the dwellings first submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 7) Notwithstanding the submitted details, nor Condition 1 above, none o f the dwellings hereby permitted shall be occupied until such time as a scheme of boundary treatment for the development (and including a timetable for its implementation) has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dev elopment shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed scheme and timetable. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2 of Schedule 2, Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re - enacting that Order with or without modification) no gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure (other than any approved pursuant to this condition, or as a replacement of such in the same location, of the same type, constructed in the same m aterials, and at a height not exceeding that which it replaces) shall be erected, unless planning permission has first been granted by the Local Planning Authority. 8) No site works of any description shall take place on the site at any time unless all existi ng or proposed trees and hedgerows within or within 10 metres of the application site as shown on drawing nos. P20 - 0512_DE_005_01_Q, P22 - 0512_EN_0001_C_0001, P22 - 0512_EN_0002_E_0001, P22 - 0512_EN_0002_E_0002, P22 - 0512_EN_0003_C_0003, P22 - 0512_EN_0003_E_0001 or P22 - 0512_EN_0003_E_0002 are securely fenced off in accordance with a detailed scheme for their protection first submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Within the fenced off areas there shall be no alteration to ground level s, no compaction of the soil, no stacking or storing of any materials and any service trenches shall be dug and back - filled by hand, unless any alteration is first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 9) No work shall commence on the site, apart from the creation of the construction access and site compound, until such time as full details of the proposed ground and floor levels within the proposed development in relation to neighbouring land /buildings have been submitted to and agreed in writin g by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. 10) Notwithstanding the submitted plans, nor Conditions 1, 4 and 7 above, none of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until such time as a detailed scheme for the provision of the pedestrian / cycle links shown on drawing no. P20 - 0512_DE_005_01_Q ( and including details of surfacing, precise means of connection to adjacent land, highways and other pedestrian / cycle links shown on that drawing (including treatment of any changes in levels and details of any associated gates, barriers or bollards), an d a timetable for its implementation) has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and timetable Appeal Decision APP/G24 35/W/23/3332607 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 and thereafter be so maintained such that unfettered pedestrian and (where applicable) cycle access along all relevant routes is thereafter available at all times for all pedestrians and (where applicable) cyclists. 11) Notwithstanding the submitted plans, nor Conditions 1, 4, 7 and 10 above, none of the dwelli ngs hereby approved shall be occupied until such time as a detailed scheme for the provision of a pedestrian crossing at the junction of the proposed vehicular access from Lovett Close with the realigned route of public right of way N55 (and including deta ils of surfacing and any associated landscaping, measures for promoting pedestrian priority, gates, barriers or bollards together with a timetable for its implementation) has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The deve lopment shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and timetable. 12) Notwithstanding the submitted plans, nor Conditions 1 and 10 above, no more than 40 dwellings shall be occupied until such time as a scheme for the signing and waymarking of all non - vehicular routes passing through and connecting to the site (and including a timetable for its implementation) has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed strategies and timetables. 13) Notwithstanding the submitted plans, nor Conditions 1, 10 and 11 above, nor Condition 5 of planning permission ref. 13/00956/OUTM, none of the dwellings shall be occupied until such time as a detailed scheme for the treatm ent and future maintenance of the former mineral railway to the west of the site (as identified as falling within Phase E1 as defined in the Masterplan Statement (Pegasus group document ref. EMS.2423_206 V17) and including full details of hard and soft lan dscaping, ecological works, accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists and other users to adjacent land and routes including a ramped access onto the former railway line and including connectivity to dwellings within Phase E1 and those parts of the proposed r oute falling within Phases C4 and F1) and a timetable for its implementation) has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter be so maintained in accordance with the agreed st rategy and timetable such that unfettered pedestrian and (where applicable) cycle access along all relevant routes/ connections is thereafter available at all times for all pedestrians and (where applicable) cyclists. 14) Notwithstanding the submitted plans, n or Condition 4 above, no individual dwelling shall be occupied until such time as its associated car parking and turning provision (including garage space(s), where applicable) has been provided in full in accordance with the details shown on drawing no. P 20 - 0512_DE_005_01_Q and, once provided, shall not be obstructed and shall thereafter be so maintained. 15) Notwithstanding the submitted plans, nor Condition 1 above, none of the dwellings hereby permitted shall be occupied until such time as a detailed extern al lighting scheme for the development (including for all private drives and pedestrian routes and including details of future management together with and a timetable for its provision) has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Aut hority. The approved Appeal Decision APP/G24 35/W/23/3332607 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timetable. 16) Notwithstanding the submitted plans, nor Condition 1 above, no development shall take place above damp proof course in respect of the erection of any in dividual dwelling until such time as precise details of all eaves, verges, windows and doors to that dwelling (including window styles, headers, cills, porches and door surrounds, as well as doors to any garage serving that dwelling) have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. 17) All utility boxes shall be finished in black or dark brown. 18) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the deta ils of the windows and chimneys shown to the relevant dwelling as indicated on the house type drawing for that dwelling as identified in the House Type Pack (P20 - 0512_DE_G200_D) referenced under Condition 1 above. 19) None of the individual dwellings hereby ap proved shall be occupied until the bin / recycling storage provision, as indicated by plan P20 - 0512_DE_005_01_Q, serving that dwelling has been provided, hard surfaced and is available for use in accordance with details first submitted to and agreed in wri ting by the Local Planning Authority. 20) Notwithstanding the submitted plans, nor Conditions 1, 2, 4 and 7 above, none of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until such time as a detailed scheme for the provision of bin / recycling collection points (including details of any proposed hard surfacing, landscaping and means of enclosure, together with a timetable for its implementation) has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The bin / recycling coll ection points (and any associated landscaping and / or means of enclosure) shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme and timetable and shall thereafter be maintained. 21) No street name plates shall be erected / displayed on the site other than in accordance with details (including positioning) first submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 22) Notwithstanding the submitted plans, nor Conditions 1 and 17 above, none of the dwellings to Plot numbers 25 to 29 or 37 to 39 (in clusive) shall be occupied until such time as a scheme for the provision of signage availability for public use by pedestrians, has been implemented in full in accordance with details fir st submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once provided, the signage shall thereafter be so maintained. 23) None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until such time as the access arrangements shown on drawing no. ADC 3103 - DR - 004 Rev P3 have been implemented in full. 24) No construction works shall take place at any time other than in accordance with the measures set out within the submitted Construction Traffic Management Plan (March 2023, Rev F). 25) Notwithstanding the provi sions of Condition 31 of planning permission ref. 13/00956/OUTM, the development hereby approved shall relate to Appeal Decision APP/G24 35/W/23/3332607 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 the measures specified in the amended Travel Plan deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 27 April 2023 (ADC Infrastructure ref. ADC3103 - RP - B (Version 3), dated 30 March 2023). 26) Notwithstanding the submitted details, nor Condition 1 above, none of the dwellings hereby permitted shall be occupied until such time as a scheme of vehicle activated speed control signage has been installed to Gra nge Road in accordance with details first submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once implemented, the scheme shall thereafter be so maintained. 27) Notwithstanding the submitted details, nor Conditions 1 and 23 above, no works in respect of the proposed alterations to the existing junction of Grange Road with Hemsley Road shall take place until such time as a detailed scheme of all works to the existing feature entrance walls (including a timetable for their implementation, togethe r with any amended landscaping proposals) has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and timetable. End of conditions

⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned

22. It has been reported by interested parties that the southern part of the appeal site floods, this has been illustrated by submitted photographs. The southern part of the site is close to the River Sen se and its floodplain includes land close to the appeal site. The Council has stated that the originally submitted Flood Risk Assessment for the SUE demonstrated that the appeal site was within flood zone 1 (least likely to flood). Furthermore, matters of drainage and flood risk are subject to conditions associated with the outline approval . T he Council has confirmed that the drainage solution for the proposed estate is capable of meeting the its design Guidance SPD. I also note that the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority have raised no objection to the scheme. Conditions 23. I have considered the use of conditions in line with the guidance set out in the suggested conditions into consideration and impose most of these with some amendments and adjustments for clarity as discussed during the hearing . 24. I have imposed the standard condition with respect to approved plans as advised by the PPG for clarity and certainty [condition 1]. Conclusion 27. For the above …

🔗 View on PINS Casework Portal 📋 LPA Ref: 23/00012/REMM

✓ ALLOWED

Appeal Decision 3330872 (Wealden District Council) — 2024-03-15

📍 Wealden District Council LPA code: E07000065 PINS reference: 3330872 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Hearing hel d 6 and 7 February 2024 Site visit 7 February 2024 by Mike Worden BA (Hons), DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 th March 2024 APP/C1435/W/23/ 3330872 Land a t Mockbeggars Farm, London Road, Budletts Common, Uckfield TN22 2EB The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. The appeal is made by Obsidian Strategic Asset Manageme nt Ltd against the decision of Wealden District Council. The application Ref WD/2022/0648/MAO, dated 4 March 2022, was refused by notice dated 22 June 2023. The development proposed is o utline application for the development of 60no. dwellings, access and internal roads, parking, ancillary structures, landscaping and open space, drainage and other associated works. All matters reserved apart from access. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted in outline for the development of 60no. dwellings, access and internal roads, parking, ancillary structures, landscaping and open space, drainage and other associated works. All matters reserved apar t from access at Land at Mockbeggars Farm, Uckfield, TN22 2EB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref WD/2022/0648/MAO, dated 4 March 2022, subject to the conditions on the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. In December 2023 the Council re solved that it would not defend the appeal. In l igh t of this, and following consultation with the main parties , the appeal procedure was changed from an i nquiry to a h earing. A local residents group the Mockbeggars Residents Steering Group ( MRSG), Uckfield Town Council, and many individual local residents gave evidence to the hearing and took part in the topic based round table sessions. 3. As well as walking on the site itself, my site visit included Ringles Cross junctions and cottages , Snatt s Road/London Road junction, Mockbeggars Farmhouse, Durrant House and Eagle Rock and the viewing of the site from a rear private garden on Coopers Green Road . Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Main Issue s 4. Having regard to the reasons for refusal and other evidence, I consider that the ma in issues are: a) Whether the appeal site lies in an appropriate location for the development proposed and whether the proposal would make the most efficient use of land having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) b) The effect of the proposal on : Ecology with particular regard to protected species (bats) Local landscape features Highway safety Heritage assets Reasons Appropriate location 5. The appeal site lies to the east of London Road, north of Ringles Cross. It comprises of two fields, both used for pasture. The fields are separated by a hedg erow. The eastern boundary of the site lies to the rear of the gardens of the houses on Ringles Cross Road. The we stern boundary abuts London Road and is separated from it by a mature hedgerow. Housing lies both to the south and north of the site . The hous es to the north are generally set in large grounds. Mockbeggars Farm and the Farmhouse lie outside of the site to the north east. 6. The land generally slopes down from north to south and from east to west but rises to the southern part of the eastern field where an Ancient Woodland, Round Wood lies adjacent to the site. 7. The appeal site lies around 3 3 0m north of the Uck field development boundary as set out in the Wealden Local Plan 1998 (the WLP) . Saved policies GD2 and DC17 of th e WLP resist new housing development in the countryside which is not essential for agriculture or forestry or another rural justification. The proposal is contrary to these policies. 8. The Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 (the CS) retained the boundaries in the WLP but acknowledged that they would have to be breached to deliver the level of housing development required in Uckfield. It was envisag ed that this would be actioned through a separate development plan document. Consequently , as set report to Planning Committee when the application was considered, adopted se ttlement boundary would not be at odds with the spatial strategy in the development plan taken as a whole. 9. Although in outline , the proposal is for 60 dwellings. An indicative layout submitted to support the application has been amended to provide open sp ace in certain parts of the site and to specifically create a landscaped area in the southwestern part of the appeal site. The development, if allowed, would not be specifically tied to this scheme since layout is a matter reserved for Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 subsequent approval. Nevertheless, the plan does show how a 60 house scheme could be accommodated on the site taking account of required standards and site constraints. From the information before me, and given that the proposal is in outline, the scheme does not appear to be an inefficient use of land and I consider that there is no conflict with the provisions of the Framework in this regard. 10. I will consider the transport issues relating to location later in this decision. Ecology 11. Biodiversity Officer, a revised indicative layout was submitted in February 2023. Thi s sought to provide woodland in the southwestern corner of the appeal site and also minimise fragmentation of the central hedgerow running north - south across the site . These are also shown on the Land Use Parameters Plan which would be one of the approved plans. 12. The appeal site is not subject to a ny statutory or non - statutory ecological designations. The nearest statutory designation s and non - statutory designations are around 500m and 50m away respectively. 13. The submitted ecological appraisal, based on survey s, indicates that there are no buildings or struct ures present on the appeal site and that none of the trees have features to support roosting bats. The survey indic ates that the vast majority of bats recorded at the appeal site were Common and Soprano Pipistrelle bats, the most common and wide spread species. There were very low numbers of other bat species indicating that the site is not an important commuting or for aging resource for those types of bats. There is no evidence to support the views of MRSG that there is a significant bat population , nor that there are notable populations of Bechsteins bat . The survey methodology is a standard approach in acc ordance with professional body advice. Biodiversity Officer has not raised concerns about the robustness of the survey work. There is no evidence before me that the submitted survey work is not reliable. Through the parameters plan and proposed conditions, including those controlling artificial light, the environment for bats would be protected as far as is reasonably possible. 14. There is no evidence that the proposed development would be harmful to the hab itat of any protected species. There is no demonstrable evidence of harm to any recognised wildlife corridor through or adjacent to the site as a result of the proposal. 15. The appeal site lies within the recreational zone of influence surrounding Ashdown Fo rest Special Protection Area (SPA) . This is noted for various scarce species and distinctive habitat which are protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The Ashdown Forest Special Area Conservation (SAC) overlaps the SPA an d is noted for wet and dry heaths and the presence of Great Crested Newt as a qualifying feature. Given the evidence, I consider that the proposal would not give rise to a likely significant effect on any other European designated sites. 16. The proposal woul d increase the number of people living within a short drive of the Ashdown Forest SPA . It is estimated that this proposal would result in an additional 2.34 visits per 16 hour period , equating to one additional visit for Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 every 2 , 359 existing visits. Havin g regard to the evidence I consider that the proposed development could, in combination with other development and plans in the area , have a n overall significant effect on the designations through added recreational pressure such that an adverse effect on integrity could occur. 17. It is therefore necessary to assess whether the potential adverse impact could be adequately mitigated. Due to the size of the appeal site it is not possible to provide adequate on site mitigation. Th e Council, in partnership with neighbouring authorities and conservation bodies including Natural England has developed an approach to mitigation based upon the provision of suitable alternative natural greenspace, enhancement of footpaths/rights of way, a nd access management. Th is is detailed in the Ashdown Forest SPA Joint Strategic Access Management and Mon itoring (SAMM) Strategy. 18. A financial contribution collected from the developer prior to the commencement of the development of the site can be used t o help fund strategic off - site measures which are targeted towards increasing Ashdown Forest SPAs resilience to recreational pressure in line with the aspirations of the SAMM Strategy. This SAMM contribution would be in addition to a payment made towards i mproving and maintaining the visitor offer at the nearby strategic Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) . This is set out in a legal agreement provided by the appellant. This unilateral undertaking meets the tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and therefore carries weight in this decision. These contributions would result in suitable mitigation to ensure that the development would not have any significant adverse effect on the SPA. Natural England i s content with this approach. 19. The proposal would provide biodiversity net gain primarily through enhancement of existing vegetation and planting of new areas of grassland and woodland. I consider that the provisions of the Framework in respect of biodiversity are met. The Local Nature Recovery Strategy for East Sussex has not yet been published and I do not need to afford any weight to it in my decision. Landscape 20. The appeal sit e lies to the north of the town and is well bounded by trees and hedgerows. Outside of the site there is notable amount of mature woodland including the Ancient Woods of Round Wood immediately to the south and Paygate Wood across London Road to the west. Par t of Buxted Park including an area of Ancient Wood lie to the east. The appeal site is not the subject of any landscape designation and is not therefore within the scope of being a valued landscape as referenced in the Framework. 21. The area has been charact erised as Landscape and Character Assessment 2014 (WLCA) . On the site visit I saw evidence of the sandstone outcrops which lie nearby. These are typical of the High Weald National Character Area (NCA) , as defined by Natural England, of which the appeal site lies within. This NCA also includes some rem n ants of medieval landscapes. The WLCA also places the appeal site within the and the Upper Ouse Valley catego ries . Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 22. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been produced in accordance with Landscape Institute guidelines and the Council is content with it . The GI sketches within it are not in dispute and there is no alternative landscape assessment before me. 23. There are a number of influences around the site which effect susceptibility of the landscape to change , including London Road , the garage/caravan site and the housing which lies to the east, north and south of the site. Conservat ion Officer considers that these influences have already degraded the significance of the wider historic landscape, and I agree with that position. 24. The proposal will cau se harm to the character of the landscape. This is inevitable given that the proposal involves the development of a greenfield site . Within the site itself the LVIA judges this to be major to moderate adverse impact at day one and moderate adverse over the longer t erm . Given the site attributes and having particular regard to the slope of t he land, I consider the initial impacts will be major. The character of the site from within the site itself and as experienced from the rear gardens of the properties to the east of the site on Cooper s Green Road , will be changed significantly and permanently . 25. The site is fairly well contained, and because of those other influences which effect susceptibility to change, the impact on the wider landscape is less. The LVIA grades this as moderate/minor adverse ini tially and minor ad verse over the longer period. I agree with this categorisation. Whilst the scheme is in outline, the parameters pla n indicates retention of hedgerows as much as possible and the planting of new woodland in the south east corner. These kind of measures will help to mitigate the wider impact from the west and south, and in particular from the public footpath which runs parallel to London Road from the Whitehouse Farm track towards Paygate Wood. This is viewpoint 6 in the LVIA. 26. From my site visit I could see the appeal site from the environs of Durrant House and Eagle Rock. The proposed development would be visible from these locations, but I consider that the views would be softened by existing planting , even in winter. Also , since the land to the north is hi gher than the appeal site, I consider that the principal view s southwards would tend to be acros s and above the proposed development towards Round Wood. In any case such views are private, albeit ones which would be experienced by the residents of those and near by properties. 27. Given that the sandstone outcrops at Budletts Common Rocks Local Wildlife Site are some 50m outside of the appeal site boundaries, I consider that the proposed development would not cause harm t o that site. There is a proposed 15m buffer to be provided in respect of the boundary of Round Wood, and Paygate Wood is separated from the site by London Road. I consider that the proposal would not harm the value of either Ancient Wood. 28. For the reasons set out above there would be some conflict with Policy ENV8 of the WLP which seeks to conserve the low rolling landscape of the Low Weald , albeit this would be limited as landscape harm would relate to the confines of the site itself. Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 Highway Safety 29. The appeal site lies to the north of the town but is accessib le from and to the town by private car, bus, walking and cycling. The town centre is around 1.6km from the site. New bus stops would be provided on London Road. 30. The proposed development would be se rved by a new priority junction on London Road. The safety of this proposed junction design is not disputed. There is no evidence to indicate that a second access point is required. 31. The appellant has submitted a transport assessment. The validity of that assessment has been criticised by MRSG but it has been prepared in accordance with professional body standards and accepted by the highway authority. It predicts around 276 daily trips from the proposed development , a figure which I consider would not have a discernible impact on the highway network in isolation , having regard to the transport assessment evidence . Even with the additional traffic from other committed development, the cumulative impact would not fall into the category of severe, which i s the test set out in the Framework. Whilst considerable anecdotal information on traffic conditions has been presented by local residents , there is no robust highway traffic evidence before me other than from the appellant. 32. There are concern s from local residents that the walking route into town from the appeal site would be unsafe for pedestrians. The proposal includes a number of improvements to this route including widening the footway to the west of London Road in the area around Ringles Cottages . Th ese improvements would ensure that the footway does not reduce below 1.9m in width. As part of these improvements provision will be made for some layby parking around 60m to the north of the current pinch point , together with a traffic regulation order for parking restrictions . This is acceptable to the highway authority . Whilst the residents current parking arrangements may be altered , there is no evidence that these proposed arrangements would lead to harm to highway safet y. 33. Improvements would also be made to the Snatts Road/London Road junction. These measures would improve pedestrian visibility by tightening the nort hern radius of th e junction. The highway authority is content with these proposals. From my site visit, I consider that such improvements would assist a pedestrian to cross the junction en - route into the town centre. 34. Overall I consider that the submitted transport assessm ent has been prepared robustly and given the absence of alternative evidence , its findings can be relied upon. I consider that the proposal would not lead to harm to highway safety nor lead to a severe impact on the highway network, alone or in combination with other proposals . The off - site transport proposals would help to mitigate the impact of the scheme and would assist in making walking , or using public transport from the site into the town mor e of an attractive option than may currently be the case. A n approved travel plan will be required as part of the proposals . Whilst the footway and car parking arrangements and restrictio ns around Ringles Cross may inconvenience some residents who currently park there, I consider that these would not lead t o harm to highway safety. 35. The proposal would therefore accord with saved policy TR3 of the Wealden Local Plan which seeks to ensure that there would be no unacceptable traffic Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 impact of new development, and the provisions of the Framework in respect of transport. Heritage 36. The application was accompanied by a Heritage Statement. Conservation Officer does not object to the proposal and heritage was not one of the reasons for refusal. 37. I do no t consider that the proposal would cause any harm to Buxted Park Registered Park and Garden or Scheduled Monument, given the distance and lack of inter - visi bility between them and the appeal site . 38. There are no nationally designated assets within the immediate area of the appeal site . Budletts House is a Grade II listed building some 120m to the north west of the site on London Road . It is currently in use as a restaurant. Given its distance away and the characte ristics of the area in between, I do not consider that the proposal would lead to harm to the s ignificance of the listed building or its setting . 39. Spring Cottage lies on the west side of London Road, but is closer to the boundary of the appeal site than Bu dletts House . It is a traditional roadside cottage of the 18 th or 19 th century which retains its original form and character. For these reasons the Council recognises it as a non - designated heritage asset. 40. The cottage is offset from the appeal site and its location is opposite the caravan /car sales site. Its immediate setting will not be impacted by the proposed development . Imp act on the wider setting would be negligible and I consider that there would be very little harm arising. 41. Durrant House is not recognised as a non - designated heritage asset. It has some architectural and historical interest and I was able to see this on m y site visit. It is an interesting example of an Arts and Crafts house and both the house and gardens have historical connection with the second world war. 42. Eagle Rock also lies to the n orth of the appeal site and is similarly not recorded as a non - designa ted asset. Eagle Rock House is an interesting architect designed hous e dating from the 1980s which has won a RIBA award . It has a low profile within the sandstone and woodland area. The house does not share its immediate setting with the appeal site. I con sider that the proposal would not cause harm to the significance of Durrant House or Eagle Rock. 43. Mockbeggars Farm is a non - designated heritage asset recorded on the Historic Environment Record . It lies immediately adjacent to the appeal site. It is a 19 th century farm likely to be a satellite farm associated with the Buxted Estate. Whether or not it was once a coaching inn is disputed but I consider that not to be of relevance to this decision. The immediate setting of the farm would not be harmed by the proposal as the farm buildings , its courtyard and entrance would not be impinged upon. However , I consider that there would be less than substantial harm to its wider setting as the field behind the farm would be developed f or housing and this field forms part of the surroundings in which the heritage asset is experienced. Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 Other Matters Flood risk/drainage 44. The Lead Local Flood Authority has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. Neither does the district counc outline application and the details relating to surface water management and dealing with local flood risk would normally be left to reserved matters and conditions stages. At the hearing it seemed to me that much of the dispute between the appellant and MRSG related to issues that could be discussed and agreed at the discharge of conditions and detailed design stages, and not ones that would prevent a grant of outline planning permission. 45. Suggested conditions have been a greed by the Council and the appellant , taking account of the views of the Lead Local Flood Authority. These were not challenged at the round table session on flooding or in the conditions session. 46. MRSG invited me to inspect the cellar at Mockbeggars f arm h ouse where there is a well. The appellant acknowledges that the level of water in the well demonstrates that infiltration devices for the disposal of surface water are unlikely to be feasible across parts of the appeal site. Further site investigations wil l be required to inform the final drainage solution for the proposed development at a later stage. 47. There is no compelling evidence that the proposal would increase existing flood risk. Nor is there any compelling evidence that the circumstances relating t o this site and this proposal are so exceptional that the mitigation of flood risk and surface water disposal cannot be dealt with by conditions. 48. There is no evidence that the proposal would breach the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (Englan d and Wales) Regulations 2017 or that there would be a risk of water contamination. In any case, a condition is imposed to ensure that there would be appropriate surveys and measures in respect of any potential contamination risk . Disturbance to Mockbeggar s Farm. 49. There is no evidence that the proposal would harm or increase the risk of harm to the welfare of animals on the Mockbeggars Farm small holding. Layout is a matter for subsequent approval and a landscaping strategy and management plan will be secured by condition. Boundary treatment is a matter for detailed stages not outline and the nature and robustness of boundary treatment measures will be expected to be agreed at that stage. Whilst the vie ws out of the farmhouse towards the site will alter, there is no evidence of undue harm to living conditions of the occupiers with regard to privacy. In any event, the layout and detailed design of the proposed scheme is a n issue for reserved matters. Hou sing land supply 50. It is common ground that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply. The Council consider that it has a 3.83 years supply and the appellant considers it to be 3.19 years supply. The difference between the two main part ies on supply is not great. Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 Mill House Farm decision 51. An appeal decision at Mill House Farm, Maresfield, Uckfield 1 was drawn to my attention. I consider that the issues which the Inspector weighed in the planning balance are different to those before me. The Inspector found harm to the character and appearance of the area and poor accessibility, along with concerns ov er the effectiveness of the unilateral undertaking, none of which I have found in this appeal. I therefore place little weight on this decision. Benefits 52. The scheme will p rovide new housing in an area where there is an acknowledged shortage of land for ne w homes . As set out in the Framework , the Government has an objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. Consequently , this be nefit is afforded very significant weight. I have also had regard to the shorter than standard time limit for the subm ission of reserved matters agreed between the parties . This should aid the ability of the site to contribute early to addressing the significant shortfall of deliverable housing land in Wealden. 53. The scheme will provide 21 affordable housing units in an area where there is an acknowledged shortage of affordable homes. This percentage meets and does not exceed the policy requirement set out in Policy WCS8 of the CS and Policy AFH1 of the Affordable Housing Delivery Local Plan 2016 . For this reason I do not attach as much weight to this benefit as the appellants consider I should do, but still it carries significant weight. 54. The provision of 3 self build plots within the scheme carries substantial wei ght . 55. There are a number of economic benefits associated with the proposal . Some are claimed as benefits by the appellant whereas I would consider them to be requirements of any scheme . This includes the provision of council tax which is more of a payment for a service. The scheme will provide some economic benefit, albeit short term, in respect of construction, and some longer - term benefits to the local economy. Over all I consider the economic benefits to carry some weight in the planning balance. 56. The pro posal would provide some biodiversity net gain for which I attach moderate weight. Conditions 57. The appellant and the Council have agreed a set of suggested conditions. These were discussed at the hearing and an amended set of conditions w as submitted to me . I have considered these conditions in relation to the tests in the Framework and planning practice guidance. I have made some minor, non - material, alterations for conciseness and clarity. I have amended the description of the reserved matters to reflect the definition set out in Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. 58. It is agreed between the appellant and the Council that the standard time limit condition for submission of reserved matters should be two years f rom the date 1 APP/C1435/W/22/3292552 Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 of this decision rather than the standard three. Given the need for the site to contribute to housing supply quickly, I concur with this approach. 59. There is a need for a condition setting out the plans to which the permission relates in the interests of clarity and certainty . A number of pre - commencement conditions are necessary. These cover the need for submission and approval of further details relating to archaeology given the potential for archaeological interest ; a construction m anagement plan in the interests of the environment and amenity ; flood risk mitigation and drainage for the reasons set out in this decision ; emissions mitigation in the interests of amenity; water efficiency and renewable energy measures in the interests o f the environment ; and the design and maintenance of the access and key infrastructure in the interests of highway safety . 60. In the interests of promoting accessibility, conditions are necessary to require the approval of and adherence to a transport travel plan and the submission of details of cycle storage. In the interests of amenity, a con dition is required to control hours of construction site working and deliveries. 61. A condition is required to ensure that a contamination investigation and ris k assessment is undertaken and acted upon if necessary. 62. Conditions are imposed to secure details of internal road design in the interest of highway safety; to set out parking space requirements also in the interest of highway safety; and to control noise in the interest of living conditions of residents . 63. In the interests of ecology there is a need for conditions to require the submission and approval of a wildlife management plan , to ensure that adherence to the submitted Ecological Appraisal and to control lighting. Conditions are required to ensure that a landscape management plan is submitted to and approved prior to first occupation, and also to control the management of trees and hedgerows on the site in the interests of the character and appearance of t he area. 64. Conditions are also imposed to require the submission and approval of a phasing plan, and to ensure compliance with the submitted Design and Access Statement and the Land Use Parameter Plan in the interests of good design. Planning Obligations 65. A fully executed section 106 agreement (unilateral undertaking) has been submitted by the appellant. It covenants to make provision for affordable housing; self/custom build plots; open space; highway works; and financial contributions to the SAMM and SANG, bus service provision and for monitoring . 66. In respect of affordable housing the agreement requires 35% of the dwellings to be affordable and sets out the detail and delivery arrangements of that provision. Provision is made for 5% of the plots on the site to be self or custom build housing. 67. I am satisfied that the obligations contained in the unilateral undertaking meet the necessary tests set out both in the Community Infrastructure Regulations and the Framework . A ll are necessary to make the development acceptable, directly related and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. I have taken the agreement into account in my decision. Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 Planning Bal ance 68. The proposal is in conflict with policies GD2 and DC17 of the WLP , both of which the Council and the appellant consider are out of date. However, the appeal site being outside of the adopted settlement boundary would not be at odds with the spatial strategy in the development plan taken as a whole because the C S recognis es that the WLP set boundaries from 1998 would have to be breached to deliver the level of housing required . The conflict is therefore limited. 69. I have concluded that the proposal would cause some harm to landscape character but that this would be largely contained within the locality of the site. There would be some confl ict with Policy EN8 of the WLP. 70. I have found no harm to ecology or highway safety and concluded that the proposal wou ld not le a d to a severe impact on the highway network. The proposal is not in an inappropriate location for new housing development and with the package of highway and other transport measures secured through section 106 agreement, the use of non - car means for journeys into the town will be more of an attractive option than it may be currently. 71. I have also found that there would be less than substantial harm to one non - designated heritage asset and this is to be weighed in the planning balance. 72. The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land . In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 11d of the Framework, the policies which are most important for determining the application are considered to be out of date. 73. The proposal would del iver a number of benefits primarily the provision of housing in an area of acknowledged housing land shortage. This carries very significant weight. The provision of affordable housing also carries significant weight. There would be other benefits too. Tak en as a whole, I consider that the adverse impacts of the proposal do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. 74. Whilst the proposed development is contrary to the develop ment plan , material considerations in dicate that the decision should be taken other wise than in accordance with it. Conclusion 75. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. Mike Worden INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: John Litton KC Landmark Chambers, i nstructed by Obsidian Strategic Land Management Ltd He called : Mark Bewsey (BA Hons) PGDipPLan MRTPI Director DHA Planning (Planning) Dan Simpson BSc (Hons) PhD (Bris) CEcol MCIEEM Direct or Aspect Ecology (Ecology) Chris Jenkinson BA (Hons) Dip LA CML I Associate Director Aspect Ecology (Landscape) Simon Moon MSC DIC BEng (Hons) CMILT M CHIHT Director DHA Planning (Transport) John Hanlon BEng CEng MICE Director, Glanville (Flood Risk and Drainage) FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Stacey Robins Head of Planning and Environment INTERESTED PARTIES: Algy Williams Mockbeggars Residents S teering Group (MRSG) Andy Earl MRSG (Heritage) Chris Hughes MRSG (Transport) Charlotte Wales MRSG Graham Mi dmer MRSG Dr Alan Thom pson C.Geol, FGS, MRTPI. MRSG (Flood Risk/Drainage) Viv ienne Blandford MRSG (Landscape) Danielle Mc Hallan MRSG (Transport) Councillor Karen Bedwell Uckfield Town Council Cou ncillor Jackie Love Mayor, Uckfield Town Council Bernadette Re e d Local r esident and local Councillor Michael Scanlon Local r esident Dr Martin Stemming Local r esident Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 DOCUMENTS Documents submitted at the Hear ing HD1 HD2 Evidence relating to Eagle Rock House from MRSG and response from Appellant HD3 Statements and supporting evidence handed in by Bernadette Reed HD4 Photographs of Ringles Cross submitted by Danielle McHallan Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called "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. 2) A) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than 2 years from the date of this permission. B) The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than 1 year from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved . 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans /doc uments: Site Location Plan Indicative Land Use Parameter Plan (ref 0179/C103D) Drawing 16997 - H - 03 Rev P3 (within Transport Technical Note dated January 2023) 4) A noise report using Pro PG, Planning and Noise shall be submitted to and approved in writing by t he Local Planning Authority as part of the reserved matters submission showing; A) An initial noise risk assessment of the proposed development site B) A systematic consideration of four key elements. Element 1 - demonstrating a "Good Acoustic Design Process" El ement 2 observing internal "Noise Level Guidelines" Element 3 undertaking an "External Amenity Area Noise Assessment Element 4 consideration of "Other Relevant Issues". The report shall demonstrate that: C) Night time internal noise levels within bedrooms will conform to the "good" design range, as identified in BS 8223 and shall include details and specification of passive acoustic ventilation proposed. D) External noise levels within gardens do not exceed 55 dB LAeq (16hrs) (0700 - 2300) E) Internal nois e levels within habitable rooms (living rooms/conservatories) will conform to the "reasonable" design range, as identified in BS 8223: Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings/Code of Practice. All mitigation measures deemed necessary shall be su bmitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme prior to occupation of those dwellings identified as requiring noise mitigation. 5) Alongside the submissio n of any Reserved Matters application, a Compliance Statement shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 the Local Planning Authority, based upon the principles contained within the Design and Access Statement dated January 2022. The Compliance Stat ement shall take account of and accord with the Land Use Parameter Plan hereby approved. 6) No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of invest igation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority 7) No development shall take place, including any ground works or works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the approved CMP shall be implemented and adhered to in full throughout the entire construction period. The CMP shall provide details as appropriate but not be restricted to the following matters: Temporary access provision. The anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during construction. The method of access, turning, egress and routeing of vehicles during construction. The parking of vehicles by site operatives and visitors. The l oading and unloading of plant, materials and waste. The storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development. The erection and maintenance of security hoarding. The provision and utilisation of wheel washing facilities and other works req uired to mitigate the impact of construction upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary Traffic Regulation Orders). Details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works. A scheme for the control of noise and dust. Mea sures to manage flood risk, both on and off the site, during the construction phase. All works shall ensure compliance with guidance found in British Standard - 1: 2009 +A1:2014 - Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and op en sites. 8) No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The foul drainage works shall be implemented in accordance wit h the approved details. There shall be no occupation of the development until it has either been confirmed by Southern Water that there is capacity for that Phase of the development or where an upgrade to the infrastructure is required that the necessary u pgrades have been implemented and confirmed by Southern Water to the Local Planning Authority. Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 9) Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed surface water drainage system shall be submitted in support to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage system shall incorporate the following: If the Infiltration Proposal (detailed within the Flood Risk Assessment) is proposed, the use of infiltration to manage surface water runoff should be supported by findings of infiltration testing in accordance with the BRE365 and groundwater monitoring undertaken between autumn and spring. The strategy should be supported by detailed drainage drawings and hydraulic calculations which should take into account the con nectivity of the different surface water drainage features. If Attenuation Proposal (detailed within the Flood Risk Assessment) is proposed, surface water discharge rates should not exceed Qbar for the developable area of the site for all rainfall events, including those with 1 in 100 (+40% for climate change) annual probability of occurrence. Evidence of this (in the form of hydraulic calculations) should be submitted to support the detailed drainage drawings of the drainage strategy. The hydraulic calcula tions should take into account the connectivity of the different surface water drainage features. The condition of the ditch/drain which will take surface water runoff from the development should be investigated before discharge of surface water runoff fro m the development is made. Any required improvements should be carried out prior to construction of the outfall. The details of the outfall of the proposed attenuation pond should be provided as part of the detailed design. This should include cross sectio ns and invert levels. The detailed design should include information on how surface water flows exceeding the capacity of the surface water drainage features will be managed safely. The detailed design of the attenuation pond/permeable paving should be inf ormed by findings of groundwater monitoring between autumn and spring. The design should leave at least 1m unsaturated zone between the base of the ponds and the highest recorded groundwater level. If this cannot be achieved, details of measures which will be taken to manage the impacts of high groundwater on the drainage system should be provided. The drainage shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before first occupation of the related dwellings. 10) A maintenance and management plan for th e entire drainage system should be submitted to the planning authority before any construction commences on site to ensure the designed system takes into account design standards of those responsible for maintenance. The management plan should cover the fo llowing: A) This plan should clearly state who will be responsible for managing all aspects of the surface water drainage system, including piped drains. Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 B) Evidence that these responsibility arrangements will remain in place throughout the lifetime of the devel opment. These details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter remain in place for the lifetime of the development. 11) Before preparation of any groundworks or foundations for the development hereby ap proved, full details for the incorporation of water and energy efficiency measures, the promotion of renewable energy and sustainable construction within the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the de velopment shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter so retained. 12) The development shall not commence until technical details of the layout of the access and all associated off - site highway works which shall include details of new and enhanced footways, uncontrolled crossing point, bus stops, new layby and layby enhancements, Snatts Road junction improvements, and associated Traffic Regulation Orders (speed limits and parking restrictions) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Highway Authority and the development shall not be occupied until the technical highway scheme and Traffic Regulation Orders have been authorised and completed. 13) Prior to the commencement of development details of the proposed surface wate r drainage to prevent the discharge of surface water from the proposed site onto the public highway and, similarly, to prevent the discharge of surface water from the highway onto the site shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in consultation with the Highway Authority. 14) Prior to the commencement of development on site, detailed drawings, including levels, sections and constructional details of the proposed road(s), surface water drainage, outfall disposal and street lighting to be provided, shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and be subject to its approval, in consultation with the Highway Authority. 15) Prior to works below ground level an investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the plann ing application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planni ng Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the f indings must include: A) A survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; B) An assessment of the potential risks to: Human health Property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets,woodland, and service lines and pipes A djoining land Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 Groundwaters and surface waters Ecological systems Archaeological sites and ancient monuments; C) An appraisal of remedial options and proposal of the preferred option(s). Land Contamination Risk Management (LCRM). 16) Prior to commencement, the applicant shall undertake an Emissions Miti gation Assessment and an Air Quality Assessment in accordance with the guidance in the Air Quality & Emissions Mitigation Guidance for Sussex (2021). Mitigation must be agreed with the Local Planning Authority in the form of a mitigation statement that inc ludes the elements required by the guidance document. INFORMATIVE: The intention of the air quality guidance is to identify and ensure the integration of appropriate mitigation into a scheme at the design stage, so the damage costs on health can be properl y mitigated. The applicant is required to include an emissions mitigation assessment, the purpose of which is to assess the local emissions from a development and determine the appropriate level of mitigation required to help reduce the potential effect on health and/or the local environment. The emissions mitigation assessment must use the most up to date emission factors (at http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review - andassessment/tools/emissions.html). Mitigation shall include the promotion of cycling and walking, public transport, car clubs, low emission vehicles and associated infrastructure, etc. A development such as this can have a major influence on public behaviour. For example by providing electric vehicle charge points and/or separate electricity connection rated at least 32A and capable of taking at least a 7kW charge point in parking spaces and garages, residents and visitors can be assisted to switch to low emission vehicles. Additionally, charge points are much cheaper and easier to install during the co nstruction phase rather than as a retrofit. 17) Before preparation of ground levels for development approved a wildlife management plan shall be submitted and approved, to include as appropriate detailed proposals for the protection of bats, birds, reptiles, g reat crested newts and badgers, and measures for the mitigation of any harm to them likely to be caused by the development. The works and other measures forming part of that plan shall be carried out in accordance with it. 18) Prior to commencement of developm ent a phasing plan shall be submitted for approval to the local planning authority. This shall include the phasing for the various elements of the development, including associated infrastructure. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning au thority, the development of the site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved phasing plan. 19) No floodlighting, security lighting or other external means of illumination of the site shall be provided, installed or operated in the development, exc ept in accordance with a detailed scheme which shall provide for Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 lighting that is low level and directional and has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting scheme shall show predicted light levels at neighbou ring residential properties. The artificial lighting to the development shall accord with the Ecological Lighting Design Principles (6212 - TN01) Additional Information and conform to requirements for Environmental Zone E2 contained within Table 2 of the I nstitute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note GN01/21 The Reduction of Obtrusive Light and comply with the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 08/18 Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK. The scheme shall be imp lemented in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter. 20) No phase of the development herby permitted shall be brought into use until the archaeological site investigation and post investigation assessment (including provision for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition) for that phase has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the written scheme of investigation (set out in condition 4 ) to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning A uthority. 21) A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small privately owned, domestic gardens or areas to be adopted by the Local Highway Aut hority, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted and the landscape management shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan for the life time of the development. 22) Notwithstanding the details as submitted, prior to first occupation, details for the provision of cycle storage in accordance with East Sussex County Council's adopted standards shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the approved details shall be implemented before the first occupation of the relevant part of the development to which they relate and retained thereafter. 23) The development shall take place strictly in accordance with the reco mmendations set out within the Ecological Appraisal January 2022 (date stamped 9 March 2022) and the Bat Survey Update 2023 Technical Note 02 (within Hearing Statement on Ecology Matters dated 9th January 2024) authored by Aspect Ecology. The development s hall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained. 24) During the site preparation and construction phases no audible works or deliveries/removals shall be undertaken other than within the times Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00 hours, Saturday 08:00 to 13:00 and not at all on Sundays or Public/Bank Holidays. 25) There shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either the groundwater or any surface waters, whether direct or via soakaways. Prior to bein g discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaways system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through trapped gullies and silt traps to BS 5911:1982 with an overall capacity compatible with the site being drained and shall be retained thereafter. Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/23/333 0872 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 20 26) The access shall not be used until visibility splays which accord with those shown on Drawing 16997 - H - 03 Rev P3 within the Transport Technical Note (date stamped 13.01.2023) are provided in both directions and maintained thereafter. Once provided the splay s shall thereafter be maintained and kept free of all obstructions over a height of 600mm. 27) The new estate roads shall be designed and constructed to a standard approved by the Planning Authority in accordance with Highway to subsequent adoption as publicly maintained highway. 28) Parking spaces shall measure at least 2.5m by 5m (with an extra 50cm on each side where spaces abut walls, fences or hedges). Car parking shall be provided prior to the occupation of the associated dw ellings and thereafter retained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 29) No trees and/or hedgerows on the site, unless dead or dangerous, shall be felled, reduced, pruned or destroyed without the consent in writing of the Local Planning Author ity. Furthermore, the following work shall not be carried out within the approved protection zone of any tree or hedgerow, except with the consent of the Local Planning Authority: - A) Levels shall not be raised or lowered in relation to the existing ground level within the approved protection zone of the tree or hedgerow. B) No roots shall be cut, trenches dug or soil removed within the approved protection zone of the tree or hedgerow. C) No buildings, roads or other engineering operations shall be constructed or carried out within the approved protection zone of the tree or hedgerow. D) No fires shall be lit within the approved protection zone or in a position where the flames could extend to within 5 metres of the foliage, branches or trunk of the tree or hedgerow as per the requirements of BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition & construction - Recommendations. E) No vehicles shall be driven over the area within the approved protection zone of the tree or hedgerow. F) No materials or e quipment shall be stored within the approved protection zone of the tree or hedgerow as per the requirements of British Standard 5837:2009 'Trees in Relation to Construction'. 30) The Travel Plan Statement, once approved, shall be in operation from first occup ation of development. The appointed Travel Plan Coordinator shall provide a monitoring report to the Local Planning Authority after 1 year of full occupation to be audited by the Highway Authority. END OF CONDITIONS

⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned

72. The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land . In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 11d of the Framework, the policies which are most important for determining the application are considered to be out of date. 73. The proposal would del iver a number of benefits primarily the provision of housing in an area of acknowledged housing land shortage. This carries very significant weight. The provision of affordable housing also carries significant weight. There would be other benefits too. Tak en as a whole, I consider that the adverse impacts of the proposal do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. 74. Whilst the proposed development is contrary to the develop ment plan , material considerations in dicate that the decision should be taken other wise than in accordance with it. Conclusion 75. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. Mike Worden

🔗 View on PINS Casework Portal 📋 LPA Ref: WD/2022/0648/MAO

✓ ALLOWED

Appeal Decision 3326725 (London Borough of Merton) — 2024-04-29

📍 London Borough of Merton LPA code: E09000024 PINS reference: 3326725 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 April 2024 by David Cross BA(Hons) PgDip(Dist) TechIOA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 April 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/T5720/W/23/3326725 Land adjacent to 72A Havelock Road, London SW19 8HD The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a grant of planning permission subject to conditions. The appeal is made by Mr Ghlenn Perry Capuyan agai nst the decision of the London Borough of Merton. The application Ref 23/P0964 was approved on 20 July 2023 and planning permission was granted subject to conditions. The development permitted is application for planning consent to construct a 1 - bed detached residential property . The conditions in dispute are Nos 4 and 5 which state that: 4 Removal of PD (Extensions/Alterations) - Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or a ny Order revoking and re - enacting that Order with or without modification), no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwellinghouse other than that expressly authorised by this permission shall be carried out without planning permission first ob tained from the Local Planning Authority. 5 Removal of PD (Windows/Doors) - Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re - enacting that Order with or withou t modification), no window, door or other opening other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed in the 1st floor front, rear or side elevations without planning permission first being obtained from the Local Planning Authori ty. The reasons given for the conditions are: 4 The Local Planning Authority considers that further development could cause detriment to the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties or to the character of the area and for this reason would wish to c ontrol any future Development P lan policies for Merton: policy D4 of the London Plan 2021, policy CS14 of Merton's Core Planning Strategy 2011 and policies DM D2 and D3 of Merton's Sites and Policies Plan 2014. 5 To safeguard the amenities and privacy of the occupiers of nearby properties and to comply with the following Development Plan policies for Merton: policy D4 of the London Plan 2021, policy CS14 of Merton's Core Planning Strategy 2011 and policies DM D2 and D3 of Merton's Sites and Poli cies Plan 2014. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 23/P0964 for application for planning consent to construct a 1 - bed detached residential property at l and adjacent to 72A Havelock Road, L ondon SW19 8HD granted on 20 July 2023 by the London Borough of Merton, is varied by deleting conditions 4 and 5 and substituting for them the following condition: 4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re - enacting that Order with or without modification), no : Appeal Decision APP/T5720/W/23/3326725 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 enlargement, improvement or other alteration of the dwellinghouse ; additions etc to the roof of the dwellinghouse ; buildings etc incidental to the en joyment of the dwellinghouse ; or hard surfaces incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse , shall be constructed other than those expressly authorised by this permission . Application for C osts 2. An application for costs was made by Mr Ghlenn Perry Capuyan against the London Borough of Merton . This application is the subject of a separate decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue is whether the condition s are reasonable or necessary in the interests of c haracter and appearance, living conditions and flood risk. Reasons 4. The proposal relates to a detached dwelling consisting of infill development between existing dwellings , and which is located on a plot which narrows significantly to the rear. The developm ent had commenced at the time of my visit. The disputed conditions relate to the removal of permitted development rights. The site is not within a particularly sensitive location, such as a conservation area, and I have not been made aware of permitted dev elopment rights being withdrawn for nearby properties or the wider area. 5. Paragraph 54 of the N ational Planning Policy Framework states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justi fication to do so. The PPG 1 also advises that conditions restricting the future exercise of permitted development rights may not pass the test of reasonableness or necessity . 6. Condition 4 relates to the removal of permitted development rights in respect of the extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwellinghouse . As part of the appeal , both the Council and the appellant have considered this as relating to Class es A - H of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the GPDO 2 which relate to development within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. I will also consider Condition 4 on that basis. 7. Class A relates to the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse. The Council specifies th at the external amenity space to the rear of the site is of a size which is below required standard . Future extensions to the rear would further limit this external amenity space and would not provide a reasonable standard of accommodation for residents. I consider that these concerns are well - founded and that a reduction in the rear external amenity area would lead to significant harm to future residents of the site. 8. The eason fo r Condition 4 only refers to the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties and the character of the area . B ut even allowing for the constrained nature of the rear part of the site and the angled relationship with neighbouring plots, I do not consider that an extension to the 1 P lanning P ractice G uidance - paragraph 21a - 017 - 20190723 2 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) Appeal Decision APP/T5720/W/23/3326725 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 rear would be any more harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring residents or to character and appearance than a rear extension on other dwellings in this area. However, this does not lead me to a different conclusion in re spect of the living conditions of future residents of the appeal site . 9. Class B relates to additions etc to the roof of a dwellinghouse , more specifically t he enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof. Due to the ang led layout of the appeal site and neighbouring properties I consider that a n addition such as a rear dormer c ould lead to an elevated and intrusive degree of overlooking of neighbouring properties. That would be the case even given the relationship between the appeal proposal and the rear elevations of neighbouring properties. I therefore consider that the Councils concerns on this matter are well - founded. 10. Class C relates to a ny other alteration to the roof of a dwellinghouse. The Council now accepts that the removal of this permitted development right is excessive, and I see no reason to disagree. 11. Class D relates to porches, and the Council contends that a porch would disrupt the symmetry of the front elevation and would be harmful to the character of the approved dwelling and the streetscene. However, it has not been demonstrated that this right has been removed f rom other properties in the area, including the Edwardian dwellings on Havelock Road. Given that the evidence suggests that nearby properties could exercise the permitted development right to erect a porch, it is not reasonable or necessary to withdraw thi s right for the appeal site. 12. Class E relates to buildings etc incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse , with further details regarding buildings, e n closures, pools or containers . As is reflected in my consideration of Class A, outbuildings in the rea r garden could harm the living conditions of future residents due to a reduction i n external amenity space. Howev er, my conclusions on the Reason given for the condition in respect of Class A also apply here , including with regards to the effect on neighbo uring residents as well as character and appearance . Nevertheless, I co nsider that the removal of this class of development right is reasonable and necessary in the interests of the living conditions of future residents of the appeal site . 13. Class F relates to hard surfaces incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse . The Council refers to the site being within a Critical Drainage Area and is at risk of surface water flooding. Due to the circumstances of the site and the effect of hard surfacing on floodi ng and drainage issues, I consider that restrictions in R eason for this condition does not refer to flood risk or drainage , but this does not negate my conclusions on this matter . 14. Cl ass G relates to chimneys, flues etc on a dwellinghouse , and the Council refers to the potential effect on first floor side windows of No 72 A Havelock Road. However, evidence submitted with the application 3 indicates that those windows would be removed, a nd this reflects my observations on my visit. I therefore consider that the removal of Class G rights is not reasonable or necessary. 3 Including the Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment, March 2023 Appeal Decision APP/T5720/W/23/3326725 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 15. Class H relates to microwave antenna on a dwellinghouse . The Council refers to potential harm to the amenity of neighbouri ng residents and to the character of the area. However, it has not been demonstrated that this right has been removed from other properties in the area. Even given the relatively unusual layout of the site and the relationship with nearby properties, it ha s not been demonstrated that the circumstances of the proposal are such that the withdrawal of development rights in this Class is justified. 16. No reference has been made to Class AA . However , given the effect s of the conditions and the in respect of that Class then I do not need to R eason for Condition 4. 17. Condition 5 states that no window, door or other opening other than those expressly authorised by this p ermission shall be constructed in the 1st floor front, rear or side elevations . The Reason for this condition refers to the amenities and privacy of the occupiers of nearby properties . 18. However, even allowing for the unusual layout of the site, further open ings on the first floor to the front and rear would be no more intrusive in respect of neighbouring properties than those openings already permitted. 19. First floor windows o n a side elevation of the proposal may have enabled intrusive overlooking into first floor windows on the side of No 72 A , but as stated previously these windows are proposed to be removed. 20. R efer ence is made to windows on the ground floor of No 72 A , although the submitted evidence indicates that these are either a secondary window or for a non - habitable room. In any event, first floor windows on the side elevation would only enable a very narrow viewing angle downwards i nto any side ground floor windows of 72 A . 21. There are also no windows on the side elevation of 74 H avelock Road which may be a ffected by the proposal. 22. I therefore conclude that Condition 5 is not reasonable or necessary with regards to the amenities and privacy of the occupiers of nearby properties , and I note that the Council has not sought to defend t his condition in its Statement of Case. Conclusion 23. On the issue of Condition 4, I have concluded that the removal of permitted development rights in respect of Classes A, B , E and F is reasonable and necessary for the living conditions of future residents of the site in respect of external amenity space, the living conditions of neighbouring residents in respect of privacy, as well as flood risk and sustainable drainage . Reference to the wording of these C lasses in a co ndition will also provide a suitable degree of precision. 24. However, with regard to Condition 4, the removal of permitted development rights in respect of Classes C, D, G and H would not meet the tests of reasonableness and necessity . 25. Condition 5 in respect of window, door or other opening s o n the 1st floor of the dwelling would also not meet the tests of reasonableness and necessity . Appeal Decision APP/T5720/W/23/3326725 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 26. I will therefore re move Condition 4 and replace it with one which refers only to development within Classes A, B, E and F of the GPDO . I will also delete Condition 5. On that basis, the development would comply with the design and amenity considerations of Polic ies D4 of the London Plan 2021, CS14 of the Core Planning Strategy 2011 , and DM D2 and DM D3 of the Sites and Polic ies Plan 2014. My attention has not been drawn to development plan polic ies in respect of flood risk and sustainable drainage , but this does not negate my conclusions on th at issue. 27. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the planning permission sho uld be varied as set out in the formal decision. David Cross INSPECTOR

⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned

First floor windows o n a side elevation of the proposal may have enabled intrusive overlooking into first floor windows on the side of No 72 A , but as stated previously these windows are proposed to be removed. 20. R efer ence is made to windows on the ground floor of No 72 A , although the submitted evidence indicates that these are either a secondary window or for a non - habitable room. In any event, first floor windows on the side elevation would only enable a very narrow viewing angle downwards i nto any side ground floor windows of 72 A . 21. There are also no windows on the side elevation of 74 H avelock Road which may be a ffected by the proposal. 22. I therefore conclude that Condition 5 is not reasonable or necessary with regards to the amenities and privacy of the occupiers of nearby properties , and I note that the Council has not sought to defend t his condition in its Statement of Case. Conclusion 23. On the issue of Condition 4, I have concluded that the removal of permitted development rights in respect of Classes A, B , E and F is reasonable and necessary for the living conditions of future residents of the site in respect of external amenity space, the living c…

🔗 View on PINS Casework Portal 📋 LPA Ref: 23/P0964

⚖️ 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.

→ Next steps

⚖️ Build your Appeal Pack 🧠 Pattern Browser — all refusal themes

📊 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.

🏆 Winning Arguments

Appeal Decision 3332515 (Maldon District Council) — 2024-05-02

Appeal Decision 3331533 (North Yorkshire Council) — 2024-05-02

Appeal Decision 3335717 (Folkestone and Hythe District Council) — 2024-05-01

Appeal Decision 3328322 (Somerset Council) — 2024-03-18

Appeal Decision 3326583 (Dartmoor) — 2024-04-30

Appeal Decision 3332607 (North West Leicestershire District Council) — 2024-03-15

Appeal Decision 3330872 (Wealden District Council) — 2024-03-15

Appeal Decision 3326725 (London Borough of Merton) — 2024-04-29

→ Next steps

🤖 Planning Agent