🏆 Winning Arguments
Real PINS Inspector reasoning from appeals where refusals on Green Belt 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 Green Belt was OVERTURNED (national).
Each card quotes the inspector's reasoning verbatim — drop directly into your appeal statement as precedent (with proper attribution).
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3376692 (Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area *) — 2026-05-29
📍 Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * LPA code: E07000006 PINS reference: 3376692 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 March 2026 by M Chalk BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 Boveney Court Farm , Boveney Road, Dorney, W indsor , Buckinghamshire, SL4 6QG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for [outline] planning permission • The appeal is made by Eton College against Buckinghamshire Council. • The application Ref is PL/25/0354/FA. • The development proposed is d emolition of open sided barn, conversion, alteration and change of use of existing buildings from Use Class B8 to Use Class C3 to provide 7 residential units and construction of 5 new residential units, to provide a total of 12 residential units (2 x 2 bedroom; 6 x 3 bedroom; and 4 x 4 bedroom) including hard and soft landscaping, attenuation pond, bin and cycle stores, car parking, infrastructure and associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for d emolition of open sided barn, conversion, alteration and change of use of existing buildings from Use Class B8 to Use Class C3 to provide 7 residential units and construction of 5 new residential units, to provide a total of 12 residential units (2 x 2 bed room; 6 x 3 bedroom; and 4 x 4 bedroom) including hard and soft landscaping, attenuation pond, bin and cycle stores, car parking, infrastructure and associated works at Boveney Court Farm , Boveney Road, Dorney, Windsor, Buckinghamshire, SL4 6QG in accordan ce with the terms of the application, Ref PL/25/0354/FA and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Applications for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Eton College against the council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matters 3. The appeal proposal is functionally unchanged from that previously dismissed on appeal in July 2024 1 . Since that time additional information has been provided in relation to the effect on bats or other protected and important species. 4. The site is in the Green Belt. In determining the previous appeal on this site in July 2024 the Inspector found that the proposal was not inappropriate development as it comprised the redevelopment of previously developed land which would not cause substan tial harm to openness. That appeal was assessed against the December 2023 National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) , but the most recent Framework update in December 2024 contains essentially the same exception to what constitutes inappropriate de velopment at paragraph 154(g). 1 PINS ref: APP/N0410/W/23/3335905 Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 There are no changes to the scale or siting of the proposed development from that earlier decision. It would be contained principally within the bounds of the existing built form and hardstanding within the site. While there would be some loss of openness from the new houses due to their siting and height, I agree with my colleague that this would amount to no more than moderate harm. Consequently, the proposal would accord with the exception at paragraph 154(g) of the Framework. 5. Like cases should be determined in like manner, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the December 2024 revisions to the Framework state at paragraph 156 that major housing development in the Green Belt should provide affordable housing that reflects local or national policy , necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure, and the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public. These are known as the Golden Rules and are a material consideration in the determination of this appeal . 6. A separate application for listed building consent 2 was submitted to the council for works to a Grade II listed barn on the site. Consent was granted in September 2025 for those works , and therefore this is not a consideration in this appeal . Main Issues 7. There is no dispute between the main parties about the proposed improvements to local infrastructure. The main issues are therefore : • Whether the appeal proposal would provide sufficient affordable housing , • Whether it would make acceptable provision of open space , • The effect of the proposal on protected and important species and habitats, with particular regard to bats ; and, • Given local concerns about safe access in the event of flooding, I have also elevated this to a main issue having sought the views of the main parties . Reasons Affordable housing 8. The Framework states that major housing development in this location must contribute 50% affordable housing . National Planning Practice Guidance states that for development which is subject to the Golden Rules a site specific viability assessment should not be undertaken for the purpose of reducing developer contributions, including affordable housing. It is not disputed that the development would not provide 50% affordable housing , with a contribution equating to 21% towards offsite housing instead proposed. 9. Co r e Policy 3 of the South Bucks Core Strategy require s at least 40% in schemes of 5 units and above to be affordable . The policy allow s both for off - site provision and for a lower contribution where it is clearly demonstrated that this is not economically viable. The appeal proposal does not therefore conflict with Core 2 Council ref: PL/25/0355/HB Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 Policy 3, as the council have accepted that a fully compliant scheme would not be economically viable. 10. Nonetheless, the development would fail to provide sufficient affordable housing , contrary to the Framework. Open space 11. The Framework further requires that the development provide new green spaces that are accessible to the public, or improvements to the same. The council have identified a requirement for 0.11 hectares of open space to be provided as part of this development, including a Local Area of Play of at least 100 square metres. The appellant does not dispute this requirement. 12. N o public open space would be provided as part of the development. Furthermore, no contributions are included in the submitted unilateral undertaking towards the improvement of existing public green space. 13. Consequently, the development would also fail to make acceptable provision for open space, contrary to the requirements of the Framework. Bats and protected species 14. The previous appeal on this site was dismissed as the Inspector found that the bat surveys for the site were out of date and therefore it was unlikely that Natural England would grant a mitigation licence for the proposed works . S ubsequently new surveys have been conducted which provide an updated position statement for bats on the site. 15. I have had regard to my duties under Regulations 9(1) and 9(3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 in relation to nature conservation. In this instance the presence of bats within the buildings has been established by the provided surveys. These have been reviewed by Natural England alongside their grant of a licence for works to a neighbouring building. Natural England ha s indicated that it would likely accept the mitigation methods described. 16. The council’s ecology consultee has also reviewed the additional information and advised that the development would be acceptable, subject to conditions. C onditions securing suitable care and mitigation measures are set out in the attached schedule. The proposed mitigation measures would minimise the disturbance to bats from a development that would deliver new housing in a district where there is a recognised shortfall of housing land through the redevelopment of redundant buildings . The development would therefore successfully meet the tests for receiv ing a European protected species licence from Natural England, subject to compliance with the proposed conditions . T here would consequently be no unacceptable impacts to bats arising from the proposed development. 17. The appeal proposal would therefore accord with Core Policy 9 of the Core Strategy, which requires biodiversity resources to be conserved and enhanced. Flooding 18. The appeal site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3. A flood risk assessment has been provided . While not a concern raised by the council or its internal consultees, there Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 is public interest in the possibility of flooding causing a loss of access from the appeal site. The Environment Agency noted in a consultation response that the development would result in a situation of d anger to m ost people in the event of flooding with a danger of loss of life for the general public . The main parties’ comments were sought on this point . 19. The appeal site lies between the River Thames and the Jubilee River. This latter watercourse was constructed as a flood relief channel for the River Thames. However, subsequent flooding has shown that the design of the Jubilee River was inadequate to handle higher levels of overflow. Residents and the Parish Council have therefore expressed concerns that in the event of further flooding occupiers of the proposed houses would be at risk due to being unable to evacuate. 20. F looding of a scale that would affect access to the appeal site would occur in a 1 in 100 flood event. Such an event would affect the wider Thames Valley, and any effect on the access to the site would be preceded by several days of flood effects in the wider area. This would provide advance warning to residents of a potential need to evacuate , with updates available should the water level continue to rise. 21. The risk to residents of being unable to evacuate is therefore slight , considering the slim possibility of a flood event of sufficient magnitude occurring and the considerable lead time before the evacuation route would be affected . Paragraph 181 of the Framework states that in areas at risk of flooding development should only be allowed where, amongst other considerations, safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate. Given the low level of risk, the development would accord with this requi rement. Other Matters 22. The appeal site lies within the Boveney Conservation Area , and I have a duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving its character or appearance . There is also a Grade II listed building on the site, identified as building B on the submitted plans , and I must have special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting . The Conservation A rea is characterised by scattered properties of varying ages set in spacious gardens and other open spaces. The listed building is a 17th or 18th century timber - framed building finished partly in weatherboarding and with a tiled roof. The farmyard provides the setting within which the barn is principally experienced . In determining the previous appeal on this site my colleague concluded that the proposal would result in a slight enhancement to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The appeal proposal is identical to that scheme, and there is no evidence before me to lead me to find otherwise. It would also therefore preserve the setting of the listed building. 23. The development has been proposed despite concerns over its viability. However, a contribution towards affordable housing would be provided and the unilateral undertaking allows for a further viability review as part of the development . This could secure additional revenue if the return on the development exceeds that which is expected . It also secures contributions towards the provision of NHS services. I see no reason to doubt that the contributions would be used as identified in the undertaking. The council has asked for the undertaking to be varied to take account of different figures . However, given the lack of viability of the development I am content that the undertaking as submitted is acceptable . Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 24. My attention has been drawn to a recent decision made by the council to refuse permission for the residential redevelopment of a site elsewhere in Dorney . I note that this other development was found to fail the sequential test for flooding and the site was found to not be in a sustainable location . Given these significant differences the council’s decision does not lead me to alter my conclusions on this development. 25. A neighbouring occupier has queried the accuracy of the red line on the application drawings. However, the appropriate ownership certificate was served on the neighbour advising of the development before the application was submitted. 26. A neighbour expressed concerns about w indows facing into their property over the shared boundary. These windows are existing and at a high level in the wall s , but would serve habitable rooms and bathrooms in units C and D. Where these windows would serve habitable rooms these would be dual - aspect or open plan rooms with other windows to provide outlook. Accordingly, a suitably worded c o ndition could ensure that these windows are retained as non - opening with obscured glazing to preserve the privacy of the neighbouring occupiers. While the neighbour also expressed concern about light from these windows there would be no change to their size or siting . This would therefore not resu lt in unacceptable harm to neighbour living conditions. 27. Interested parties raised concerns about the council’s handling of the application in relation to public consultation and the extent to which they sought the views of consultees on the matter of flood risk. However, i t is not within the scope of this appeal to address th ese concerns . 28. The site is located outside the built - up areas of the surrounding settlements. Occupiers would be dependent to an extent on private vehicles but no more so than those in neighbouring properties, and there are some amenities in the nearby settlements within walking or cycling distance. While the road into the main built - up area of Dorney does not have a footpath along it, it is fairly wide and visibility along it is good. I am therefore satisfied that the site is not an unsustainable location for residential development. 29. The development makes provision for wildlife habitats which would be secured by condition. This is supported by the council, and there is no detailed evidence before me to suggest that such measures would not be effective. The construction environmental management plan would detail the existing biodiversity features of the site, a nd explain how harm would be avoided during construction. Planning balance 30. The appeal proposal would not comply with the Golden Rules set out in the Framework for major housing development in the Green Belt. As the proposal complies with one of the exceptions set out in paragraph 154 of the Framework this would not make it inappr opriate development in the Green Belt, but a failure to comply does weigh against the proposal. 31. The council can only demonstrate a housing land supply o f 0.91 years, which is an acute shortfall against the minimum requirement of 5 years. Accordingly, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 32. The development would make a contribution towards affordable housing , albeit not a policy - compliant one. The shortfall therefore attracts moderate negative weight in the overall balance. 33. The appeal site is next to Dor n ey Common , a large area of public green space. Given the proximity to existing public space t he lack of provision of , or contribution to, public space therefore also attracts moderate weight against the proposal . 34. G iven the council’s housing land supply position, the harm arising from the failure to comply with the Golden Rules would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the considerable benefits that wo uld result from the proposed development. Planning permission should therefore be granted. Conditions 35. The council has recommended conditions . I have considered these against national planning practice guidance and, where necessary, amended the wording . 36. I have imposed conditions relating to the commencement of development (1) and confirming the approved plans (2) for the sake of certainty. I have omitted from the list of approved plans those which are not to scale as these are informative but cannot be considered enforceable. 37. Conditions requiring the approval of materials (3) and compliance with the approved arboricultural method statement (4) are reasonable to secure an acceptable finished appearance for the development. 38. Conditions 5, 6 and 7 ensure that development does not proceed on site if the land is found to be contaminated unless that contamination is remediated . Conditions 8 and 9 secure the access to and within the site, together with parking. Condition 10 ensures that reasonable archaeological investigat i ons are carried out on site as part of the approved development. 39. Conditions 11 to 15 would prevent any undue effect to biodiversity from the development and provide certainty about the protection of bats in particular. 40. Flood risk at the site and surface water management would be controlled by c onditions 16 to 20 . These would include compliance with the submitted flood risk assessment, agreement of a flood risk management plan which would include evacuation plans and information for future occupiers , agreement of surface water management measures and agreement of details of maintenance for the site’s drainage system. 41. A condition requiring that obscured glazing be fitted to windows in Units C and D that face onto a shared boundary (2 1 ) is reasonable to prevent loss of privacy to the neighbouring occupiers. C onclusion 42. For the reasons set out above the appeal is allowed. M Chalk INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 Schedule of planning conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos : 5540 - 1100 - REV - I Proposed Residential Development Location Plan 5540 - 1101 - REV - E Existing Site Block Plan 5540 - 1102 - REV - K Proposed Site Block Plans 5540 - 1103 - REV - H Development Footprint Comparison Plan and Table 5540 - 1104 - REV - E Lighting Strategy 5540 - 1200 - REV - E Existing Plans – Unit B 5540 - 1201 - REV - E Existing Plans – Units C,D,E,F1,F2 and G 5540 - 1202 - REV - D Existing Roof Plan – Units C,D,E,F1,F2 and G 5540 - 1210 - REV - H Proposed Plans – Unit B 5540 - 1211 - REV - H Proposed Plans – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G 5540 - 1212 - REV - H Proposed Plan – Units H - J and K - L - M 5540 - 1213 - REV - E Proposed Roof Plans – Units C,D,E,F1,F1 and G 5540 - 1233 - REV - E Ground Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit B 5540 - 1234 - REV - D First Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit B 5540 - 1235 - REV - D Roof Demolition Plan and Current Condition Unit B 5540 - 1236 - REV - E Ground Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit C and D 5540 - 1237 - REV - D Roof Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit C and D 5540 - 1238 - REV - D Ground Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit E 5540 - 1239 - REV - D Roof Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit E 5540 - 1240 Existing Open Sided Barn – To Be Demolished 5540 - 1301 - REV - B Existing Elevations and Section – Unit B 5540 - 1302 - REV - C Existing Elevation and Section s – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G 5540 - 1303 - REV - D Existing Elevations and Sections – Unit C,D,E,F1,F2,G 5540 - 1311 - REV - D Proposed Elevations and Sections – Unit B 5540 - 1312 - REV - G Proposed Elevations – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G (1/2) 5540 - 1313 - REV - H Proposed Elevations – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G (2/2) and Sections 5540 - 1314 - REV - F Proposed Elevations and Section – Units H – J 5540 - 1315 - REV - H Proposed Strip Elevations 5540 - 1320 - REV - A Proposed Elevations and Sections – Units K - L - M 5540 - 1321 Proposed Bin Store Floor Plans and Elevations 5540 - 1322 - REV - A Existing and Proposed Strip Elevations 5540 - 1335 - REV - A External Current Condition and Demolitions - Unit B 5540 - 1336 - REV - B Internal Current Condi tion – Unit B 5540 - 1337 - REV - A Externals Current Condition and Demolition – Units C - D - E 5540 - 1338 - REV - A Externals Current Condition and Demolition – Units C - D - E 5540 - 1355 - REV - B Unit B – Elevations as Proposed 5540 - 1356 - REV - B Unit B – Sections as Proposed 5540 - 1357 - REV - B Units C - D - E – Front and Rear Elevations as Proposed 5540 - 1358 - REV - B Units C - D - E – Side Elevations as Proposed 5540 - 1401 - REV - C Barn B – Proposed Typical Section and Details 5540 - 1402 Units C & D – Proposed Typical Section Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 5540 - 1403 Unit E – Proposed Typical Section 5540 - 1404 - REV - C Barn B – Proposed Typical Connection Detail 5540 - 1405 - REV - A Barns C & D – Typical Conservation Roof light Detail 20102 - SFK - B - GF - DR - S - 0100 T1 Barn B Plans, Section and Elevations as Existing 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0200 T2 Barn B Demolition 20102 - SFK - B - GF - DR - S - 0300 T1 Barn B Ground Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - 1 F - DR - S - 0301 T2 Barn B First Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - R - DR - S - 0302 T2 Barn B Roof Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0303 T1 Barn B Section as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0304 T2 Barn B Steelwork Plan and Details 20102 - SFK - A - XX - DR - S - 0407 Rev B Detail 7 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0411 Rev B Detail 11 – Rafter Repairs 20102 - SFK - CDE - GF - DR - S - 0300 P1 Buildings C, D & E Ground Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - CDE - GF - DR - S - 0301 P1 Buildings C, D & E First Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - Gen - XX - DR - S - 0412 Detail 12 – Wall / Soleplate Repairs 3) Prior to any works above ground floor slab level, a detailed schedule of works and materials to be used to for the development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority . The details to be submitted shall include the following: a) Elevational materials to be used on existing and proposed buildings; b) Matching brick bond to plinth of listed building and mortar mix; c) All internal and external new joinery details (doors and windows) at an appropriate scale, including sections and glazing bars; d) Details of contemporary glass framing system; e) Details of insulation to be provided for listed building and curtilage listed buildings; f) Metal rainwater goods; g) Details of roof lights and lanterns h) Details of hard surfacing to be used throughout the site i) Details of any new external flues, vents, grills, or external pipework The development shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the approved details. 4) The development shall be implemented in accordance with the document titled Tree c ondition s urvey, Arboricultural Implications Assessment a nd p rotection r ecommendations w ith descriptions of landscape enhancements dated 7 January 2025 , and the plans contained within it , submitted and approved as part of the planning application . The works shall be carried out under the supervision of a retained arboricultural specialist to ensure that the phasing of the development accords with the stages detailed in the method statement , and that the correct materials and techniques are employed. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 5) Prior to any below ground works commencing on site , the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority: i) A site investigation, based on the Phase 1 Ground Condition Assessment prepared by Stantec and dated January 2025 , to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. This should include an assessment of the potential risks to: human health, property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, pests, woodland and service lines and pipes, adjoining land, ground waters and surface waters, ecological systems, archaeological sit es and ancient monuments. ii) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (i) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. iii) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (ii) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangement s for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. 6) Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme and prior to the first use or occupation of the development, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced together w ith any necessary monitoring and maintenance programme and copies of any waste transfer notes relating to exported and imported soils shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The approved monitoring and maintenance programme shall b e implemented and continued in accordance with the approved details . 7) Any contamination that is found during the course of construction of the development hereby permitted that was not previously identified shall be reported immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be su spended until a risk assessment has been carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found, the development shall not resume or continue until remediation and verification schemes have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 8) No part of the approved development shall be occupied until the existing means of access has been sited and laid out in general accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with the Buckinghamshire Council guide note "Commercial Vehicular Access Within the P ublic Highway". 9) The scheme for parking, garaging and manoeuvring indicated on the submitted plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall be retained thereafter. 10) No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, have undertaken a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation , including details of how any findings shall be recorded, which has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 11) The development shall not commence until a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (the HMMP), prepared in accordance with the approved biodiversity metric calculation and its supporting documents , has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The HMMP shall include : (a) a non - technical summary; (b) the roles and responsibilities of the people or organisation(s) delivering the HMMP; (c) the planned habitat creation and enhancement works to create or improve habitat to achieve the biodiversity net gain in accordance with the approved metric ; (d) the management measures to maintain habitat in accordance with the approved biodiversity metric calculation for a period of 30 years from the completion of development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The created and/or enhanced habitat specified in the approved HMMP shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved HMMP. 12) Prior to the commencement of development above ground level, an ecological enhancements scheme to detail bat roost replacement features, such as bat boxes, bat tiles/access features and bat lofts, swift boxes and sparrow boxes, reptile hibernacula/log pile s, stag beetle log piles, wildlife kerbs, and gaps at ground level of boundary fences for the movement of hedgehogs, shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The development shall proceed in accordance with the ecological enhancements, which shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the development and retained thereafter. 13) Before any construction works hereby approved are commenced, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) detailing, in full, measures to protect existing habitat during construction works and to safeguard protected and notable species, shall be sub mitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The CEMP should be completed in accordance with the British Standard on Biodiversity BS 42020:2013 with these details below: a) Details of what biodiversity features could be impacted on and what development activities could be potentially damaging; b) A rolling timetable of when and where specific measures to avoid / reduce impacts are to be carried out including any seasonal or legal implications (e.g. the bird nesting season) and who is responsible; c) Details of method statements for specific biodiversity issues (e.g. for specific destructive activities such as: vegetation clearance, hedgerow removal, tree felling, soil stripping and building demolition); d) Identify all practical measures (e.g. fencing, protective barriers and warning signs) and sensitive working practices to avoid impacts; e) Details of inspections to ensure wildlife do not become trapped in excavations or machinery; f) Details of other responsible person and lines of communication on - site in relation to the implementation of the CEMP; Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 g) Details of contingency measures in the event of an accident or other potentially damaging incident (e.g. pollution incidents; how to deal with previously unrecorded protected species found during construction and restoration; unexpected bad weather; rep air of damaged features etc.); h) Details of procedures to avoid pollution incidents (e.g. from fuel spills and site run - off based on an understanding of the wildlife interest at risk); i) Regular review of the implementation of CEMP throughout the construction / restoration phase to monitor effectiveness of mitigation measures and compliance with legal, planning and/or contractual requirements; j) Details of biosecurity protocols / method statements to prevent spread of non - native species; k) Temporary management of existing wildlife features during construction / implementation. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 14) Prior to occupation, a "lighting design strategy for biodiversity" shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall: a) identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places or along important routes used to access key areas of their territory, for examp le, for foraging; and b) show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent the above species u sing their territory or having access to their breeding sites and resting places. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the strategy, and these shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the strategy. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be ins talled without prior consent from the local planning authority. 15) The development shall be implemented in strict accordance with the agreed reptile mitigation plan (Re ptile Mitigation Strategy, Davidson Watts - Ecology, 12 January 2023). 16) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (reference 332612015, dated January 2025 by Stantec) , Stantec letter dated 7 May 2025, reference Project/File: J:32612015 Boveney Court Farm and the Stantec Technical Note dated March 2026 , including the following mitigation measures: • Finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 21.49 metres above Ordnance Datum (AOD) • Compensatory storage shall be provided as set out in Stantec Drawing 49209/4001/002, Revision C named 'Floodplain Storage Analysis' These mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the scheme's timing/phasing arrangements. The measures detailed above shall be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the de velopment. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 17) No works (other than demolition) shall begin until a Flood Risk Management Plan based on the draft submitted with the March 2026 Stantec Technical Note has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the approved Ma nagement Plan. 18) Prior to the commencement of development above ground level a scheme showing details of boundary treatment within the 1% annual exceedance probability plus 35% allowance for climate change floodplain, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The boundary treatment shall be permeable to floodwater. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the scheme's timing/phasing arrangements. 19) No works (other than demolition) shall begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on the Location Plan (drawing no. 1100, rev. I , Phase 1 Ground Condition Assessment prepared by Stantec and dated January 2025 . Flood Risk Assessment (332612015, 07 February 2025, Stantec) , Surface Water Drainage Strategy (332612015/100/DSR, 07 February 2025, Stantec) and Response to LLFA Surface Water Drainage Strategy Comments (332612015/RMF/EE - PL/25/0354/FA, 07 May 2025, Stantec) has been submitted to a nd approved in writing by the local planning authority . The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include: • Assessment of SuDS components as listed in the CIRIA SuDS Manual (C753) and provide justification for exclusion if necessary • Demonstrate that water quality, ecological and amenity benefits have been considered • Water quality assessment demonstrating that the total pollution mitigation index equals or exceeds the pollution hazard index; priority should be given to above ground SuDS components • Undertake the clearance of overgrown vegetation within the second length of ditch to ensure water can flow unimpeded • Discharge from the site should be limited to 4.3l/s • Ground investigations including: • Infiltration in accordance with BRE365 • Groundwater level monitoring over the winter period (from November until April) • Subject to ground investigations demonstrating that infiltration is viable, the applicant shall amend the surface water drainage scheme to dispose of surface water runoff via infiltration • SuDS components agreed within the Proposed Surface Water Drainage Layout (drawing no. 49209/4001/003, rev. B) • Full construction details of all SuDS and drainage components • Detailed drainage layout with pipe numbers, gradients, and pipe sizes complete, together with storage volumes of all SuDS components Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 • Calculations to demonstrate that the proposed drainage system can contain up to the 1 in 30 storm event without flooding. Any onsite flooding between the 1 in 30 and the 1 in 100 plus climate change storm event should be safely contained on site • Details of proposed overland flood flow routes in the event of system exceedance or failure, with demonstration that such flows can be appropriately managed on site without increasing flood risk to occupants, or to adjacent or downstream sites 20) Prior to the occupation of the development a whole - life maintenance plan for the site must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The plan shall set out how and when to maintain the full drainage system (e.g. a maintenance schedule for each drainage/SuDS component), with details of who is to be responsible for carrying out the maintenance. The plan shall also include as as - built dr awings and/or photographic evidence of the drainage scheme carried out by a suitably qualified person. The plan shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 21) Prior to first occupation of the dwellings identified as Units C and D on drawing referenc e 5540 - 1211 - REV - H t he ground floor windows in those dwellings marked as HL on that drawing shall be fitted with obscured glazing in accordance with d etails submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning . O nce installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. End of schedule⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
conclusions on this development. 25. A neighbouring occupier has queried the accuracy of the red line on the application drawings. However, the appropriate ownership certificate was served on the neighbour advising of the development before the application was submitted. 26. A neighbour expressed concerns about w indows facing into their property over the shared boundary. These windows are existing and at a high level in the wall s , but would serve habitable rooms and bathrooms in units C and D. Where these windows would serve habitable rooms these would be dual - aspect or open plan rooms with other windows to provide outlook. Accordingly, a suitably worded c o ndition could ensure that these windows are retained as non - opening with obscured glazing to preserve the privacy of the neighbouring occupiers. While the neighbour also expressed concern about light from these windows there would be no change to their size or siting . This would therefore not resu lt in unacceptable harm to neighbour living conditions. 27. Interested parties raised concerns about the council’s handling of the application in relation to public consultation and the extent to which they sought the views o…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3370001 (Cornwall Council) — 2026-05-28
📍 Cornwall Council LPA code: E06000052 PINS reference: 3370001 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 April 2026 by K Reeves BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/W/25/3370001 Land West of Lowenna, Pentreath Lane, Praa Sands, Penzance TR20 9AD • The appeal is made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant permission in principle. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs M Laity against the decision of Cornwall Council. • The application Ref is PA25/03739. • The development proposed is c onstruction of m inimum 6, m aximum 8 d wellings & a ssociated w orks . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the construction of minimum 6, maximum 8 dwellings and associated works at Land West of Lowenna , Pentreath Lane, Praa Sands, Penzance , TR20 9AD , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/03739 . Preliminary Matter 2. The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing - led development. The permission in principle consent route has two stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in - principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages. 3. The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent t echnical d etails c onsent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly. Main Issue 4. The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Corn wall National Landscape (CNL). Reasons 5. The appeal site lies within the South Coast Western section of the CNL. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that great weight be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended) places a statutory duty on decision - makers to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of such areas. Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3370001 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 6. The site occupies a transitional position between the built edge of Newtown and the more open countryside to the south and west. The A394 forms a strong physical and visual boundary and is used in the updated Cornwall Character Areas (CCA07) as the dividin g line between character areas. The immediate roadside environment includes a bus stop, footway, utilities cabinets, signage and parked vehicles. Existing dwellings lie opposite and to the east. As such, the site does not exhibit the more strongly expresse d qualities of the CNL, which are experienced further south and along the coastline. 7. The proposal would introduce up to eight dwellings on land that is currently undeveloped. This would extend built form beyond the existing settlement edge and result in an urbanising encroachment into the countryside. The change from undeveloped land to built development would be perceptible from the A394 and would reduce the sense of openness at this point. I therefore find that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and to the CNL. 8. However, the degree of harm must be understood in its landscape context. The site occupies the very northern extremity of the CNL, where the special qualities of the designation (coastal scenery, undeveloped cliffed landscapes and sweeping open plateau) ar e not strongly expressed. It also has a stronger visual and functional relationship with the developed group of buildings along this section of the A394 corridor than with the more sensitive undeveloped landscape to the south. As a result, the site’s contr ibution to the special qualities of the CNL is limited. 9. The harm would also be localised. Views of the site are largely limited to short - range glimpses from the A394 and nearby roads, while public rights of way to the south sit at lower levels, further restricting visibility. Where it is seen, any development w ould be read within the established linear pattern of built form along the A394. The site’s generous size provides scope to position buildings behind new hedgerows and strengthened retained hedge boundaries, thereby softening their presence in the wider la ndscape. 10. For these reasons, although the landscape harm would be moderate and localised, the proposal would nonetheless result in material harm to the character and appearance of the CNL . Consequently, it conflicts with Policies 2, 3, 12, 21c and 23 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 – 2030, Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency D evelopment P lan D ocument ( 2023 ) , P olicy 1 of the Cornwall Site Allocations Development Plan Document ( 2019) and Policy S2 of the Breage Neighbourhood Development Plan 2017 – 2030 , which collectively require development to conserve and enhance landscape character and protect the scenic beauty and special qualities of the CNL. 11. The proposal also conflicts with Policies PD - P1, PD - P2 and PD - P11 of the Cornwall Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2022 – 2027 , which require that all change within the CNL is landscape - led and conserve s and enhance s natural beauty by protecting landscape and seascape character and ensuring that any development is sensitively designed, small - scale and avoids harm to the CNL. Planning Balance 12. The Council confirms that it cannot demonstrate a five - year supply of deliverable housing sites and it therefore follows that the development plan policies are Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3370001 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 deemed to be out - of - date for the purposes of Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework. In these circumstances, Paragraph 11(d) states that permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. National Landscapes are an example of such areas/assets. 13. As established , the proposal would result in moderate, localised landscape harm, the site makes only a limited contribution to the special qualities of the CNL and the integrity and purpose of the designation would remain intact. As such, t he harm to the CNL does not amount to a strong reason for refusal for the purposes of P aragraph 11(d) and footnote 7 of the Framework . 14. Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework also indicates that, when the development plan policies are deemed to be out - of - date , planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole, with particular regard to certain specified policies. 15. The proposal would deliver between six and eight dwellings in an affordable - led scheme . The Council’s Affordable Housing Officer confirms that 93 households in Breage Parish are seeking affordable accommodation. This is a parish heavily constrained by designations, including the CNL and the World Heritage Site, limiting opportunities for conventional growth. The delivery of affordable housing in this context c arries substantial weight . 16. The site lies on the edge of Newtown, a recognised settlement with public transport links along the A394. The Breage Neighbourhood Development Plan acknowledges Newtown’s connectivity. Paragraph 73 of the Framework emphasises the importance of small and medium - sized sites in meeting housing needs and supporting small and medium sized builders, noting that such sites are often built out quickly. These factors attract significant weight . 17. There would also be modest economic benefits during construction and from future occupiers’ expenditure, and social benefits from supporting the vitality of a rural settlement in line with P aragraph 83 of the Framework. 18. Set against these benefits is the moderate, localised landscape harm identified, to which great weight is given in accordance with the Framework . However, in discharging the statutory duty under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, I am satisfied that the purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the CNL can be furthered as far as possible at the technical det ails stage. In particular, the scope to strengthen the existing hedgerows and to secure a landscape - led layout w ould allow the residual harm to be limited through careful and sensitive detailed design. 19. In the context of a confirmed shortfall in the five - year housing land supply, a clear and pressing local affordable housing need and the limited contribution this particular site makes to the special qualities of the CNL, the adverse impacts of granting pe rmission in principle would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out at Paragraph 11 of the Framework applies. Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3370001 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 20. The Framework is government policy and therefore carries substantial weight. As the most important development plan policies for determining the appeal are deemed to be out of date, I give greater weight to the policies of the Framework. This indicates tha t a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Conditions 21. The PPG sets out that it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle. I have therefore not considered such matters in the determination of this appeal. Conclusion 22. For the reasons given above, the proposal conflict s with the development plan, but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed and permission in principle granted. K Reeves INSPECTOR⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
In particular, the scope to strengthen the existing hedgerows and to secure a landscape - led layout w ould allow the residual harm to be limited through careful and sensitive detailed design. 19. In the context of a confirmed shortfall in the five - year housing land supply, a clear and pressing local affordable housing need and the limited contribution this particular site makes to the special qualities of the CNL, the adverse impacts of granting pe rmission in principle would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out at Paragraph 11 of the Framework applies. Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3370001 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 20. The Framework is government policy and therefore carries substantial weight. As the most important development plan policies for determining the appeal are deemed to be out of date, I give greater weight to the policies of the Framework. This indicates tha t a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Conditions 21. The PPG sets out that it is not possible for Conc…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3375485 (Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council) — 2026-05-26
📍 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council LPA code: E07000084 PINS reference: 3375485 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Inquiry Held on 3 - 6 & 10 - 1 2 March 2026 Site visit s made on 4 & 9 March 2026 by G D Jones BSc(Hons) DipTP DMS MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 th May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 Land north of Whitchurch Station, West of Newbury Road • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Genko Holdings Ltd against the decision of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. • The application Ref 23/03157/FUL , dated 20 December 2023 , was refused by notice dated 1 August 2025 . • The development proposed is described as construction of a surface car park; landscape buffer planting and screening; SUDS; erection of single cafe unit (class E); fast - charging EV points; cycle parking facilities; creation of vehicular access pedestrian footpath to station platform . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a surface car park , landscape buffer planting and screening , S u DS , erection of single cafe unit (class E) , fast - charging EV points , cycle parking facilities , vehicular access and pedestrian footpath to station platform at Land north of Whitchurch Station, West of Newbury Road in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/03157/FUL , dated 20 December 2023 , subject to the conditions contained within the Schedule at the end of this decision . Applications for Costs 2. Applications for costs were made by: • Genko Holdings Ltd against Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council ; and • Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council against Genko Holdings Ltd . 3. These costs applications shall be the subject of a separate Decision letter to follow. Although the appellant made no further application, it also inv ited me to make an award of costs against Whitchurch Town Council and Whitchurch Action Group (WTCAG) on my own initiative . I shall also deal with thi s matter in th e Costs Decision letter to follow. Preliminary Matters 4. T he appellant has requested that the appeal be assessed and determined based on proposal drawings that differ from those that were before the Council when it determined the appeal planning app lication. The Council raised no ob jections to Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 this approach and made its case on the basis of the revised details . The changes relate to repositioning of car parking spaces by less than 1m ; l andscaping alterations, including additional planting; variations to the surrounding context ; a modification to the site access to allow a bus to exit in an emergency ; and detail of the drainage and lighting scheme s. 5. In my view, the amendments are, at the most, minor and would not result in a ny substantial difference or fundamental change to the application as determined. Moreover, due to their minor nature, nor would the re be any procedural unfairness caused to anyone involved in the appeal were it to be det ermined on the basis of the revised details. I have, therefore, assessed and determined th e appeal based on the revisions requested by the appellant. 6. A legal agreement, dated 23 March 20 26 , made under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Legal Agreement) was completed shortly after the Inquiry closed. I have had regard to it when consider ing and determin ing the appeal . Main Issue s 7. The main issue s are: • Whether the proposed development would accord with Policy SS11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 - 2029; • Whether it amounts to major development in the terms of paragraph 190 of the National Planning Policy Framework; • The proposed development’s effect on trees, including those subject to Tree Preservation Order; • Its overall effect on the North Wessex Downs National Landscape; and • Whether any harm that might result from the development would be outweighed by other considerations. Reasons Local Plan Policy SS11 8. Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011 to 2029) , M ay 2016 , (the Local Plan) allocates a 1ha site, on land to the north of the railway line at Whitchurch , for development of a new passenger railway station car park . Local Plan Policy SS11 says , amongst other thing s , that proposals for a new rail station car park at this site will be permitted subject to three criteria being met . 9. The appeal site broadly contains the 1ha Policy SS11 site (the alloca ted site) but also includes additional land , particularly to the south linking to the northern platform of Whitchurch Station (the Station) . Landscaping is also proposed beyond the boundaries of both the appeal site and the allocated site , par ticularly to the north and west. The proposed car park , which is intended for use by rail passengers, would , nonetheless, be contained within the allocated site. In that respect, the proposals accord with Policy SS11. 10. The first criteri on of Policy SS11 is that vehicle access to the site can be secured from Newbury Road. Part of the allocated site extends to Newbury Road. It is in this location that t he vehicular access to the car park is proposed. The access would necessitate the removal of tree s , which is a matter considered as part of the Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 third main issue below under the sub - heading Trees . Nonetheless, there is no substantiated evidence that the proposed access cannot be safely created and operated . Moreover, t he local highway authority has not objected to the propose d access . Furthermore, the Council has confirmed that it no longer sustain s its objections in respect to this first criterion. 11. The second criterion is that access between the railway station and car park site can be secured. The allocated site does not have a contiguous boundary with the Station . Consequently , other than using a rather indirect route via the existing highway network , part of which does not have a footway, compliance with this aspect of the Policy would require a link between the car park and the Station across the intervening land , beyond the allocated site . Th is is what is proposed . 12. This access link would be accommodated within that part of the appeal site that extend s to the south of the allocated site . Notwith standing some of the submissions made, there is no substantiated evidence that this proposed access cannot be delivered. Indeed it seems most likely that it can be. As with the first criterion of Policy SS1, the Council has confirmed it no longer sustain s its objections in respect to th e second criterion . 13. The third and final criterion of the Policy is that the site is comprehensively landscaped given its location within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty , now know n as the North Wessex Downs National Landscape (the National Landscape) . The o n - site planting proposed would be supplemented by off - site planting , particularly to the north and west of the allocated site. Collectively and subject to controls that could be secured via planning conditions , the proposed planting would be substantial . Accordingly, the site would be comprehensively landscaped albeit that much of the plant ing would lie beyond the allocated site and the appeal site . The effect of this aspect of the scheme along with any wider effects is considered as part of the fourth main issue below under the sub - heading N orth Wessex Downs National Landscape . 14. Other aspects of the proposals have been criti ci sed as being at odds with Policy SS11 , particularly in terms of going beyond what was envisaged when the Local Plan was adopted . These include the amount of car parking space s and hardstanding pr oposed, the consequential effect on land available on - site for landscaping, as well as in respect to proposed lighting and sustainable drainage systems (the SuDS) . 15. I recognise that if less parking and hardstanding were to be proposed, there would be more space available on - site for landscaping. Nonetheless, Policy SS11 does not place a n upper limit on the number of parking spaces that may be provided nor on the extent of hardstanding. Consequently, there is no co nflict with the Policy as a matter of principle in these respects. 16. While not expressly provided for i n the Policy, the proposed lighting and SuDS would be ancillary to the car park . Lighting and drain age infrastructure are reasonabl y standard features that one would expect to form part of a car park intended to support a railway station. The sa me is true of the proposed electric vehicle charging points and cycle parking facilities, which also do not expressly feature in the Policy. Accordingly, as a matter of principle, none of these considerations are in conflict with Policy SS11. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 17. The proposed café unit contrasts somewhat with the foregoing aspects of the appeal scheme as this kind of facility is less clearly associated with a station car park use . Nonetheless, it would support th e proposed dev e lopment , in terms of providing a service to users of the car park and Station and is described by the appellant as having been brought about by the need to support EV charging . While such a café is not expressly included within the Policy SS11 allocation, n or is it precluded . 18. Overall, therefore, the appeal scheme would not conflict with Policy SS11 of the Local Plan. Nonetheless, i t does not necessarily follow from this that the development would not cause any harm or conflict with other planning policy . These matter s are conside red below. Framework Paragraph 190 19. Paragraph 190 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that when considering applications for development within National Landscapes, permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances and w here it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. The associated footnote 67 sets out that whether a proposal is ‘major development’ for the purposes of paragraph 190 is a matter for the decision maker, taking into account its na ture, scale and setting, and whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated or defined . 20. The planning witnesses for the Council and for WTCAG respectively indicated that a scheme th at complies with Local Plan Policy SS11 would not amount to major development in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . I have found no good reason to disagree with them in this regard. While these witnesses came to a different conclusion to me in respect to compliance with Policy SS11, as set out above I have found that the appeal scheme would accord with this Policy. On this basis , the appeal scheme would not a m ount to ma jor development in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . 21. The appeal site is some 1.18ha in area. While landscaping is proposed beyond its boundary , it would be predominantly in the form of planting rather than development . T he additional land within the appeal site that extends beyond the 1ha allocated site is chiefly to accommodate the proposed link to the Station . As set out above , such a link is a requirement of Policy SS11 yet not something that can be delivered wit hout rely ing on land beyond the allocated site . 22. Although the significant majority of the appeal site would be developed and lit , the totality of the proposed development is of a reasonably small scale , including only one building which would be of modest proportions . Nor would it have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which th e National Landscape has been designated or defined . 23. For these reasons , irresp ective of my conclusion regarding compliance with Policy SS11, t he appeal scheme does not come close to meeting the description of ‘major development’ for the purposes of paragraph 190 of the Framework . Nor does it conflict with this paragraph 190 . In making this assessment I have taken into account the submissions regarding EIA screening. Nonetheless, the tests associated with paragraph 190 and EIA screening are entirely separate , with different purposes, and one should not be used to inform the other . Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 Trees 24. The creation of the proposed vehicular access would result in the loss of three trees l ocated adjacent to Newbury Road. These trees are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order made subsequent to the adoption of the Local Plan . The extent of the allocated site ’s frontage to Newbury Road places a constraint on where a vehicular access, as required by Policy SS11 , could be located . It is here that the proposed access would be located. T he Arboricultural Sta te ment of Common Ground (SoCG) between the Council and the appellant says this is the only place the access can go. Any other, more arboriculturally suitable location is not possible for other highways or landscape reasons . 25. It is implicit , therefore, that the Policy SS11 allocation anticipated the loss of these trees a s well as any effects on other trees to be retained in order to create th e vehicular access required by the Policy . Accordingly , the proposed development would bring about no greater harm through its impact on these trees th an the Local Plan Policy SS11 allocation. Moreover, the Arboricultural SoCG also concludes that the amenity value of the trees to be removed can be compensated by replacement planting , which could be secured via planning conditions. 26. For these reasons, therefore, t he proposed development would not have a significant effect on trees, including those that are subject to the Tree Preservation Order . Accordingly, in this regard , the appeal scheme would comply with Policy EM1 (Landscape) of the Local Plan and Policy LD3 ( Protection of Hedgerows, Trees and Tree Planting ) of the Whitchurch Neighbourhood Development Plan 2014 to 2029, July 2017 (the Neighbourhood Plan) , as well as with p aragraph 187 of the Framework . North Wessex Downs National Landscape 27. When assessing the proposed development’s effect on the National Landscape , I have taken into account that, via Policy SS11, the Local Plan anticipates a new passenger railway station car park at the 1ha allocated site and that that site is contained broadly within the appeal site. 28. Implicit within the Policy SS11 allocation is that a new passenger railway station car park would be acceptable at the allocated site in terms of its effect on the National Landscape subject to the site being comprehensively landscaped . If all of the landscaping were to be contained within the allocated site , it would have a n influence on the amount of space that would be available for the car park and associated development, including drainage infra structure and lighting , particularly around the edges of the allocated site . L imiting the quantum of development and i nc reas ing the amount of landscaping on - site in this manner might be said to be positive in terms of the effect on the National Landscape . 29. However, a more rounded appra isal of the appeal scheme indicates that it would have an acceptable effect on the National Landscape , broadly in line with the appellant’s landscape witness’s assessment . Fundamental to this is how the proposed off - site planting would be seen and experienced in the host landscape . 30. The proposed landscaping scheme relies on some 1ha of land that lies beyond the appeal site. While this approach may not be ideal , provided that the mitigation , be it on or off - site , would be secured , it would be acceptable in principle. The some 20m - deep belt of tree planting proposed to the north of the appeal site would be Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 very much in keeping with the local landscape character . Notable existing examples are found nearby, to the west along the former railway corridor and to the south along the existing railway corridor. Co mparable long and deep tree belts are also present in the wider landscape, particularly to the northwest . Moreover , native woodland is a key characteristic of the National Landscape and a benefit of the scheme . 31. Although the proposed tree belt would foreshorten the host field, any Policy SS11 compliant scheme would have a foreshortening effect . To the north of the tree belt , the scale and proportions of the field that would remain would be in keeping with the wider landscape. An important aspect of the effectiveness of th e proposed tree belt as a characteristic landscape feature is that it would extend the full width of the field . This c ould not be achieved were planting to be constrained to the allocated site. 32. Indeed, l imiting the landscaping to within the allocat ed site would be likely to be less in keeping with the local landscape than what is proposed. There are two principal reasons for this . First, while it would provide a greater sense of openness, planting constrained to a corner of a large field is less characteristic of the area’s landscape than the proposed tree belt . Se cond, the boundary of the allocated site has a series of rather awkward angles and corners that are even less ch aracteristic of the local landscape . 33. Part of the landscaping scheme includes meadow, which is not characteristic of the wider landscape . Nonetheless, it is characteristic of the edge of Whitchurch where there are areas of grassland and scrub such that it would not be out of keeping here or harmful to the National Landscape. 34. The appeal site is reasonably prominent in terms of being fairly elevate d and standing on the edge of the settlement with a frontage to Newbury Road. Nonetheless, its prominence and any sense of this area acting as a gateway to the National Landscape would have been known when Policy SS11 was adopted as part of the Local Plan. 35. Moreover, due in large part to the proposed planting, v isual effects of the development would be localised and diminish over time as the planting matures . By ‘ year 15 ’ , the proposed development w ould be screened from views to the north . It also seems likely that there would be some betterment in terms of providing additional screening of existing lighting within the settlement , including that associated with the Station. 36. Views of the development from the west would be more open , particularly while the proposed planting established. The Landscape and Visual Appraisal ’s assessment that after Year 15 the adverse visual effects on receptors using the rights of way to the west would be no more than moderate appears reasonable . Since th is Appraisal was produced the scheme has evolved and now includes more sympathetic mitigation . Consequently, the se visual effects are likel y to have reduced , at least a little. Nonetheless, the adverse effects in this respect would result in conflict with Policy EM1 of the Local Plan. 37. The car park would be apparent from Newbury Road, particularly due to the vehicular access , both in terms of heralding its presence and affording views in to the site that are currently screen ed or filtered by boundary planting, including the three trees that are proposed to be removed. Nonetheless, given that Policy SS11 Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 requires a vehicular access to Newbury Road , the landscape and visual effects of the development along this frontage would be likely to be similar for any Policy SS11 compliant scheme. 38. Limiting the landscaping associated with a Policy SS11 car park development to within the allocated site would also have implications in respect to visual effects . This is because there is very little scope to position the vehicular access other than near to the northern boundary . Consequently, there would be limited opportunity to sympathetically screen the development along part of the northern boundary . The proposed scheme represents a significant improvement by comparison. 39. Due principally to the screening effect of the proposed planting , the proposed drainage scheme would not have a significant influence on the character and appearance of the area beyond that of the wider proposed development . For similar reasons , combined with its small scale and simple design, the same would be true of the proposed café building. 40. The Council ’s case is that the appeal scheme would breach the statutory duty in s85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (the Sta tutory Duty) to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the National Landscape. Its planning witness accepted , nonetheless, that a proposal in accordance with Policy SS11 would be compatible with the S tatutory D uty . Again, I have f ound no good reason to disagree with her in this regard. 41. In summary , while there would be some adverse landscape and visual effects and associated conflict with Local Plan Policy EM1 resulting from the appeal scheme, these should be viewed in the context of the Local Plan Policy SS11 allocation . Any Policy SS11 compliant scheme would have some landscape and visual impacts . The appeal scheme accords with Policy SS11. Its landscape and visual effects would be localised and any harm would be no more than moderate in the longer term. There would be significant countervailing landscape and visual benefits , such that landscape and scenic beauty in the National Landscape would be conserv ed and enhanc ed . 42. Accordingly , the appeal scheme would have an acceptable effect on the National Landscape and would be compatible with the Statutory Duty. Moreover, for reasons outlined above, i t would not conflict with Polic y EM10 ( Delivering High Quality Development) of the Local Plan and Policy LD2 (Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape) of the Neighbourhood Plan , nor with paragraph 189 of the Framework, the North Wessex Downs Management Plan or the Council’s Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document , July 2018 . Further Considerations Other Matters 43. Notwithstanding some of the submissions, the evidence indicates that the purpose of the Evingar Road car pa r k was at least partly to relieve on - street parking rather than replace or provide an alternative to the planned Policy SS11 car park . Policy SS11 was adopted in light of the Evingar Road proposal . I also note that the Neighbourhood Plan expressly supports the Local Plan policy for the development of a station car park north of the railway station - the Policy SS11 allocated site . Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 44. T he appeal scheme has been criticised in terms of safety and accessibility to the Station . However, notwithstanding planned and funded improvements along the intervening route, the Evingar Road car park appears likely to perform worse or no better in these respects than the appeal schem e . This is largely due to its distance from the Station and the intervening topography and quality of lighting . Nor would it p rovide step - free access to the northern platfor m in contrast to the appeal scheme . I am mindful, though , that the appeal scheme would not resolve existing issue s asso ciated with moving directly betwee n the two platforms. 45. T here is no substantiated evidence that the proposed lighting would fail to create a safe, secure and attractive environment for users of the development. In addition to these factors, the lighting scheme must also respond to the site’s sensitive location within the National Landscape, together with relevant biodiversity considerations . These are matters that would apply to any Policy SS11 compl ia nt development . There is no compelling reason to conclude that the appeal scheme would not achieve an appropriate balance between these requirements or provide a safe , secure environment for its users . 46. Need for the appeal car park or any Policy SS11 compliant car park has also been challenged. Nonetheless, the evidence of the appellant’s highways witness indicates that there is need , current and future, for extra station car parking broadly consistent with the quantum proposed . Although cri tical of that evidence , the Council produced no evidence of its own on this matter . 47. While WTCAG did produce evidence regarding nee d, it is not as comprehensive or as compelling as that of the appellant , particular ly in terms of likely future need . For i nstance, while 6 4 % of its users may currently walk to the Station, it does not follow that there is no latent rail - user dema nd to access the Station , for example, from people who live beyond reasonable walk ing distance from it . Although aspects of the network constrain the number of services that can operate through the Station , this need not place a constraint on future demand . I was advised that, given the length of the platforms and consistent with past activity, rail passenger capacity could be increased via longer trains. 48. Network Rail supports the provision of the car park , which also suggests that there is a need for the proposed scheme . For these reasons and bearing in mind that the development plan plans for car park s at both the Policy SS11 allocated site and the Evingar Road site , there is good reason to believe that there is a need for the proposed car parking. 49. The evidence also refers to other appeal decisions. Those in other areas would have been the subject of different development plan policies compared to those before me. Moreover, I am not familiar with the full circumstances of any of those cases. While I am mindful of t he importance of consistency in appeal decision making, it is also important that each decision is made on its individual merits. So, although I have taken all of the other appeal decisions into account, I have assessed and determined th is appeal on the basis of the evidence before me in the relevant policy context. Having done so, none have altered the outcome of the appeal. Interested Parties 50. In addition to the main issue s and the other foregoing matters, concern has been expressed, including by those who spoke at the Inquiry , in respect to a number of Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 considerations . These include the proposals’ effect on rights of way; on archaeology; highway safety and congestion, including for pedestrians and access for emergency vehicles; on water quality; on biodiversity ; on safety and security; on mental health; on the rural economy ; on drainage and flood risk ; on existing infrastructure; on criminal activity and antisocial behavio ur ; on access and recreational use of the countryside; and on heritage assets . 51. The concerns raised also relate to whether th ere is a genuine n eed for all elem ents of the proposed development ; c ommunity engagement over the proposals; wider proposals for the area; l andscape - wide archaeology ; land ownership ; infrastructure to support the development ; alleged shortcomings in the assessment of the development, including the environmental impact assessment and in a wide range of other respects ; bus services /facilities ; accessibility by means other than the car , including between the car park and Statio n , and within the Station ; connectivity to the settlement; the lack of station improvements ; pollution , including noise , light, water, air and odour ; the EV charging points ; climate change; train passenger capacity; the appellant’s conduct and motives; whether the café could/should be located in the settlement; and ground conditions and contamination . 52. The objections also concern w hether there would be any p ublic benefits resulting and if so whether they are overstated ; changed circumstances since the Local Plan was adopted; overdevelopment of Whitchurch; sustainability; layout and design; co mpliance with the development plan, including the Neighbourhood Plan ; loss of farmland; compliance with Whitchurch Design Statement, the North Wessex Downs Management Plan and National Nature Network Framework ; parking for people with disabilities; liaison with Network Rail and use of its land; whether exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated; dark skies; the creation of a precedent for other development; the site’s location beyond the settlement boundary; signage; the scheme’s deliverability; procedural matter s ; the emerging Local Plan; the site’s history; consultation and publicity of the propo sals ; and viability of the café . 53. These matters are largely identified and considered within the Council officer’s report on the appeal scheme such that they were before the Council when the planning application was determined. They were also before it when it prepared its evidence and when it submitted its case at the Inquiry and are largely addressed in its evidence and in the various SoCG s . Other than as set out above, the Council did not conclude that they would amount to reasons to justify withholding planning permission. I have bee n provided with no substantiated evidence which would prompt me to disagree with the Council’s conclusions in these respects subject to the imposition of planning obligations and conditions as discussed below . Planning Obligations 54. In the event that planning permission were to be granted and implemented , the planning obligations within the Legal Agreement would secure: • A Landscape Management Plan , its implementation and its maintenance ; and • On and off - site b iodiversity measures , including a Biodiversity Gain Report , Biodiversity Gain Land, Biodiversity Metric and Habitat Management and Monitoring , and long - term management , as well as a payment to support monitoring. 55. The Council has submitted a detailed statement (the CIL Compliance Statement), which address es the application of statutory requirements t o the planning Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 obligations within the Legal Agreement and set s out the relevant planning policy support / justification. 56. I have considered the planning obligations of the Legal Agreement in light of Regulation 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) and government policy and guidance on the use of planning obligations. Having done so, I am satisfied that those obligations would be required by and accord wit h the policies set out in the CIL Compliance Statement. Overall, I am satisfied that all of those obligations are directly related to the proposed development, fairly and reasonably related to it and necessary to make it acceptable in planning terms . Conditions 57. A schedule of 24 suggested conditions agreed between the Council and the appellant has been submitted, which includes the standard time limit condition. I have considered these in the light of government guidance on the use of planning conditions and made a djustments accordingly . 58. In order to provide certainty, a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans would be necessar y . To protect highway safety and the living conditions of local residents and in the interests of biodiversity, conditions would be necessary to control matters during the construction phase, including dust and air quality, and compliance with a Construction Environmental Management Plan. 59. Conditions to safeguard against contamination that might affect the site, including unsuspected contamination, along with any requisite remediation, and to control soil and other material imported to the site , would be necessary to protect the health and well - being of future occupiers and on/ off - site receptors as well as in the interests of biodiversity . Also i n the interests of biodiversity, c ondition s would be necessary to mitigate the development’s effects on protected species and their habitat . 60. Further conditions woul d be necessary to ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined / recorded . To protect the character and appearance of the area and i n the interests of biodiversity, condition s would be necessary to protect retained trees and ensure the establishment of new tree plan t ing , to secure a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan , and to control levels , earthworks and lighting . 61. Conditions to secure the installation and management of sustainable drainage would be necessary in the interests of flood prevention, to provide appropriate and adequate facilities , and to protect the environment. To ensure safe, practical and inclusive pedestrian facilities are provided, to protect the character and appearance of the area and in the interests of biodiversity, a condition to secure the delivery of an accessible link between the site and the S tation’s northern platform would be necessary . 62. A condition would be necessary to secure and control cooking fume extraction measures associated with the café to protect the living conditions of nearby occupiers. To help ensure the efficient operation of the car park and that it serves users of the S tation appropriately , a condition would be necessary to secure a Car Park Management Plan along with its implementation . Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 63. To promote the use of sustainable modes of transport and to protect the character and appearance of the area , a condition to control the provision of on - site electric vehicle charging facilities would be necessary. To protect the living conditions of neighbours , a condition to control noise and vibration from equipment within the site would be necessary. To protect highway safety and manage traffic flow, a condition would be necessary to secure and retain the vehicular access point and associated visibility splays . Planning Balance 64. The appeal scheme accords with Local Plan Policy SS11 . It would not be ‘major development’ in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . 65. There would be some adverse effects leading to some conflict with Local Plan Policy EM1. These , though, should be understood in the context of the Policy SS11 allocation. Any Policy SS11 compliant scheme would have some landscape and visual impacts. The appeal scheme’s effects would be localised and any harm would be no more than moderate in the longer term. It would have no significant effect s on trees and accord with Framework paragraph 187 . 66. There would also be benefits in landscape and visual terms compared to the approach favoured by the Council resulting from the creation of a tree belt rather than rel ying purely on on - site landscaping . 67. Overall, the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the National Landscape and be compatible with the Statutory Duty . Moreover, for the reasons outlined above, the scheme would accord with the development plan viewed as a whole and comply with paragraph 189 of the Framework . 68. Although I have not done so , had I concluded that the appeal scheme were to represent ‘major development’ , in my view the public interest in such a scheme and exceptional circumstances were already proven when the site was allocated in the Local Plan . Furthermore, t here are significant public interest considerations associated with the delivery of the appeal scheme, which in the context of the Policy SS11 allocation and wider considerations outlined above, would amount to exceptional c ircumstances in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . 69. Again, although I have not done so , h ad I concluded that the proposed development were to be in conflict with Policy SS11, I would not have concluded that there would be a breach of the Statutory Duty bearing in mind that Policy SS11 allocates car park development on a 1ha site . As the appellant points out, it would be an overextension to claim that one form of disposition of typical car parking elements within the allocated site breaches the S tatutory D uty while another may not . 70. Moreover, the appeal scheme meets the S tatutory D uty in many ways, including by supporting the use of the rail netw ork as a s ustainable mode of transport, and via biodiversity improvement s and native tree planting . It would b ring substantial benefits . Nota ble amongst these are the support that the car park would bring to rail travel as a sustainable mode of transport, the biodiversity net gain and the native planting . There are also the landscape and visual benefits relative to the Council ’s favoured approach. Although the benefits of the scheme are not a s numerous and weighty as the appellant claim s , the y would comfortably outweigh Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 the residual harm that I have identified a nd the p olicy conflict alleged by the Council , including in respect to Policy SS11 . 71. For these reasons, ther efore, the appeal scheme is undoubtedly sustainable development in the terms of the Framework and should be granted planning permission. Conclusion 72. For all of the reasons given above and , subject to the identified conditions , the appeal should be allowed. G D Jones INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 APPEARANCES 1 FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Ruchi Parekh , Counsel Instructed by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Sh e called Frank Spooner BSc(Hons) RCArborA MArborA TechCert (ArborA) VETCert (Consulting) Operations Director & Senior Consultant , Simon Jones Associates Anne Priscott BA(Hons) C ML I Anne Priscott Associates Ltd Stephanie Baker BSc(Hons) M Sc MRTPI Associate , Bell Cornwell FOR THE APPELLANT: Sasha White 2 , King’s Counse l Instructed by Bidwells H e called Thomas Eckhardt Dipl Geol CGeol Technical Director & Hydrogeologist, WSP UK Peter Wharton BSc(Hons) FArborA MICFor Director, Wharton Natural Infrastructure Consultants Ian Dix BSc(Hons) MS c CMILT MCIHT Director, Transport Planning & Mobility SLR Consulting Limited Clare Brockhurst FLI BSc(Hons) Dip LA Director, Leyton Place Limited Christopher Pattison BA(Hons) BPI MRTPI Head of Planning, Bidwells LLP FOR WHITCHURCH TOWN COUNCIL AND WHITCHURCH ACTION GROUP : Jane Piper Instructed by Whitchurch Town Council & Whitchurch Action Group Sh e called David Williams BA(Hons) Dip(Hons) LA CMLI Principal, David Williams Landscape Consultancy Ltd Jane Piper BA(Hons) B TP MRTPI Director, Lucid Planning INTERESTED PERSONS: Jacqueline Browne Local Resident & Whitchurch Action Group David Gosling Local Resident & Whitchurch Action Group 1 Brian O'Donovan, Principal Planning Office r of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council , and Billy Palmer, Partner, Planning, Bidwells, contributed to the conditions / planning obligations session 2 Mr White was assisted by Poppy Kemp, Co unsel Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 DOCUMENT S submitted at the Inquiry ID1 - The Appellant ’s Opening ID2 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council ’s Opening ID3 - Whitchurch Town Council & Whitchurch Action Group ’s Opening ID4 - Jacqueline Brown e ’s script ID5 - David Gosling ’s script ID6 - Lead Local Flood Authority Comments dated 15 January 2026 ID7 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council ’s Closing Statement ID8 - Whitchurch Town Council & Whitchurch Action Group ’s Closing Statement ID9 - The Appellant ’s Closing Statement Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS FOR APPEAL REF APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 : 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • Site location plan Dwg 1277.01 - 001 Rev B • Existing site plan Dwg 1277.01 - 010 Rev F • Proposed site plan Dwg 1277.01 - 101 Rev I • Proposed café ground floor plan Dwg 1277.01 - 102 Rev A • Proposed café roof plan Dwg 1277.01 - 103 Rev A • Proposed café elevation Dwg 1277.01 - 200 Rev B • Site Access Arrangement Dwg ITB16002 - GA - 027 Rev C • Landscape Proposals Dwg CLPD 243 P01 • Station Car Park Existing Topography (Sheet 1 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0101 Rev P01 • Station Car Park Existing Topography (Sheet 2 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0102 Rev P01 • Station Car Park Proposed Drainage Strategy (Sheet 1 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0501 Rev P02 • Station Car Park Proposed Drainage Strategy (Sheet 2 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0502 Rev P02 • Station Car Park Drainage Catchment Plan (Sheet 1 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0510 Rev P01 • Station Car Park Drainage Catchment Plan (Sheet 2 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - X C - DR - 0511 Rev P01 • External Lighting Layout Dwg 1553 - WEL - XX - XX - DR - E - 7000 Rev C03 • LV Services Layout Dwg 15 5 3 - WEL - XX - XX - DR - E - 7001 Rev C03 3) No development shall commence on site (including site preparation , any groundworks and any off - site works ) until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The approved CEMP shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The CEMP shall include, but not be limited to: • Procedures for maintaining good public relations including complaint management; • Public consultation and liaison; • Arrangements for liaison with the Council’s Environmental Protection Team; • All works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary, or at such other place as may be approved by the LPA, shall be carried out only between the following hours: 0730 Hours and 1800 Hours on Mondays to Fridays and 0800 and 1300 Hours on Saturdays and; at no time on Sundays and Public Holidays; • Deliveries and removal of plant, equipment, machinery and waste shall only take place within the permitted hours detailed above; Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 • Mitigation measures as defined in BS 5528: Parts 1 and 2: 2009 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites shall be used to minimise noise disturbance from construction works; • Procedures for emergency deviation of the approved working hours; • An undertaking to require all contractors to be ‘Considerate Contractors’ by being aware of the needs of neighbours and the environment; • Control measures for dust, dirt and other air - borne pollutants; • Measures for controlling the use of lighting whether required for safe working or for security purposes; • Means of direct access (temporary or permanent) to the site from the adjoining maintainable public highway; • The parking and turning of vehicles of operatives and visitors off - carriageway, timeframes of delivery to be provided; • The loading and unloading of plant and materials away from the maintainable public highway, where appropriate; • Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development away from the maintainable public highway; • The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; • A scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway, particularly during the peak periods (i.e. Monday to Friday AM peak (07.30 to 09.30) and PM peak (16.00 to 18.00) periods); • The routes to be used by construction traffic to access and egress the site so as to avoid undue interference with the safety and operation of the public highway and adjacent roads, including construction traffic holding areas both on and off the site as necessary; • Method of cleaning wheels and chassis of all HGV's, plant and delivery vehicles leaving the site; • Means of keeping the site access road and adjacent public highway clear of mud and debris during site demolition, excavation, preparation and construction. No vehicles shall leave the site in a condition whereby mud, clay or other deleterious materials would be deposited on the public highway; and • Implications for and management of Whitchurch Public Footpaths 248/7/1 and 248/504/1 during construction . The CEMP shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be installed and operational before any development commences and retained in working order throughout the duration of the development. 4) No works shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA): (a) A site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as being appropriate by the desk study in accordance with BS10175:2011 - Investigation of Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice; and, unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA , (b) A detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid risk from contaminants or gases when the site is developed. The scheme shall include a timetable of works and site management procedures and the nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works. The scheme shall ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and if necessary, proposals for future maintenance and monitoring. Unless part (a) identifies significant contamination, it may transpire that part (a) is sufficient to satisfy this condition, meaning part (b) need not be subsequently carried out. This would need to be approved in writing by the LPA. If during any works contamination is encountered which has not been previously identified by these reports it shall be reported immediately to the LPA. The additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme, approved in writing by the LPA. 5) No development shall take place until a mitigation method statement relating to dormice that evidences how and when works are to take place and the specific measures that shall be put in place to retain dormice populations in “favourable conservation status” in line with protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (Amended) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be delivered in accordance with the appro ved mitigation method statement. 6) No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological evaluation, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved, a programme of archaeologic al mitigation of impact shall be completed in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation. 7) No development, including land clearance, demolition, groundworks or the delivery of materials, shall commence until an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The AMS shall accord with BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations and shall include, but not be limited to: a) Details of all tree - works operations, including timing and methodology; b) Measures for the protection of all retained trees and hedgerows; c) A schedule of works to be undertaken prior to commencement of development; d) A programme of arboricultural supervision and monitoring; e) Detailed working methods for all operations within the Root Protection Areas (RPAs) of retained trees; f) Existing and proposed levels, including full details of earthworks (cut and fill), supported by cross - sectional drawings; g) Construction methodologies for hard surfacing, access construction and any special engineering solutions within RPAs; h) Details and locations of underground and above - ground services; Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 i) Details of soil amelioration and decompaction within the RPAs of trees impacted by the works; j) The siting of site compounds, storage areas, mixing areas and contractor parking; and k) A schedule of post - construction monitoring and management measures. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the approved AMS. 8) Prior to commencement of development, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) setting out the long - term management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all hard and soft landscaping features. Soft landscape details shall include planting plan, specification (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and tree establishment), schedules of planting noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate, as well as any works to enhance wildlife habitats where appropriate. In addition, implementation timetables and maintenance programmes detailing all operations to be carried out to allow successful establishment of so ft landscaping, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA before development commences. Once approved, the landscaping shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved. 9) No development shall take place until details of any earthworks, including cross - sections and full topographical details demonstrating levels and contours, and details of working within the root protection areas of retained trees detailed within an A rboricultural M ethod S tatement as per Condition 7 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For context, cross - sections and topographical information shall include reference to immediately adjacent topography. 10) No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall include: a) A technical summary highlighting any changes to the design from that within the approved Flood Risk Assessment; b) Detailed drainage plans to include type, layout and dimensions of drainage features including references to link to the drainage calculations; c) Detailed drainage calculations to demonstrate existing runoff rates are not exceeded and there is sufficient attenuation for storm events up to and including 1:100 + climate change; d) Confirmation that sufficient water quality measures have been included to satisfy the methodology in the Ciria SuDS Manual C753; and e) Exceedance plans demonstrating the flow paths and areas of ponding in the event of blockages or storms exceeding design criteria. Once approved, the scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 11) Prior to commencement of development, details of the accessible link between Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 the site and the northern platform at Whitchurch Station shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include specifications for the design of the accessible entrance to ensure suitability for wheelchair users and confirmation that there are appropriate landowner permissions for the works to allow implementation. The footpath and accessible entrance shall be made available for public use prior to first operation of the car park and thereafter retained for that purpose. The details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 12) Prior to the erection of the café building , a scheme containing full details of arrangements for internal air extraction, odour control, and discharge to atmosphere from cooking operations, including any external ducting and flues, and necessary noise control measures determined in accordance with the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems (EMAQ 2018) document, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works detailed in the approved s cheme shall be installed in their entirety before the use hereby permitted is commenced. The equipment shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and operated at all times when cooking is being carried out unless otherwise approved beforehand in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 13) Notwithstanding the annotations and table on External Lighting Layout Dwg 1553 - WEL - XX - XX - DR - E - 7000 Rev C03 , prior to installation of the lighting scheme, a written scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority that specifies the provisions to be made for the level of illumination of the accessible footpath link within the railway embankment between the car park and northern platform. The level of illumination in this area shall be no mo re than 0.2 lux on the horiz ontal plane and 0.4 lux on the vertical plane above the baseline within this area of the site. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the operation of the car park and maintained for the lifetime of the approved development and shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. 14) Details for the long - term maintenance arrangements for the surface water drainage system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first use of the car park. The submitted details shall include m aintenance schedules for each drainage feature type and confirmation of ownership. Once approved, the scheme shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved details. 15) No development above ground level shall take place until a Tree Planting and Establishment Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The Plan shall include: a) The location, species, specification and size of all proposed tree planting; b) Details and cross - sectional drawings of tree planting pits, including soil specification, drainage, aeration and irrigation measures where applicable; c) Details of tree support and protection measures; d) A programme for implementation; and e) A five - year establishment and maintenance schedule. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 20 All tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Plan in the first planting season following completion of the development or such other timetable as approved in writing by the LPA. Any tree planted pursuant to this condition which dies, is removed, becomes seriously damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with a tree of the same species and specification, unless otherwise approv ed in writing by the LPA. 16) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of Condition 4 that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of Condition 4 has been implemented fully in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written approval of the LPA in advance of implementation). Unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA such verification shall comprise: a) As built drawings of the implemented scheme; b) Photographs of the remediation works in progress; and c) Certificates demonstrating that imported and/or material left in situ is free of contamination. Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the scheme approved under Condition 4, unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA. 17) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority certificates demonstrating that a) sufficient sampling of imported material has taken place and b) the imported material is free from unacceptable levels of contamination. Sampling shall take place in situ at a frequency of 1 per 100m 3 . 18) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until a Car Park Management Plan has be en submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include the following details: a) Details of car parking layout to include allocated areas; b) The proposed allocation and arrangement of parking spaces , including disabled blue badge bays; c) The provision of Electric Vehicle Charging Points ; d) A delivery plan for the car park, café and lockers; e) Car parking charges; f) The management responsibilities together with contact details (name , address , telephone , email); g) Maintenance arrangements; h) Enforcement measures; i) Management details of all soft landscape components where these fall within the areas covered by the Plan; j) Management details of all hard landscape elements where these fall within the areas covered by the Plan; k) Maintenance operations for both hard and soft landscape components summarised in chart format stating the frequency and duration over the Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 21 lifetime of the Plan; l) Cleaning operations including graffiti and fly - tipping removal pressure washing re - painting; m) Failed component re - design and installation liabilities/responsibilities/timings; and n) A scheme of review of the Plan to ensure that it remains relevant to the parking requirements of Whitchurch Station. The scheme of review shall be undertaken at five yearly intervals and shall not be more than ten yearly intervals. The car parking shall be provided and managed in accordance with the approved Plan thereafter, or as otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 19) Prior to first use of the electric vehicle car charging points, details of electric vehicle charging provision shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the specification, appearance and siting of any charging points. Once approved, the scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 20) All recommendations outlined in the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment report number 80769 - SRL - RP - YA - 002 - S2 - P1 shall be implemented and completed before the use, hereby approved, is first commenced and shall be thereafter retained and maintained, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 21) Development shall be undertaken in accordance with the Ecology Report dated December 2023 and Addendum Ecology Report dated July 2025 by Applied Ecology including the recommendations made at Section 4. 22) Following completion of archaeological fieldwork, a report produced in accordance with an approved programme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority setting out and securing appropriate post - excavation assessment, spe cialist analysis and reports, publication and public engagement. 23) The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) under C ondition 7 and shall be subject to supervision by a suitably qualified and experienced Arboricultural Clerk of Works (ACoW). The ACoW shall: a) Attend a pre - commencement site meeting with the developer, principal contractor and Local Planning Authority (if required by the Local Planning Authority); b) Oversee the installation of tree protection measures; c) Supervise all operations within the Root Protection Areas of retained trees; d) Monitor compliance with the approved A MS throughout construction; e) Undertake a post - construction inspection and attend a project completion meeting; and f) Submit written site supervision records to the Local Planning Authority of items a - c; at approved intervals as per the approved AMS for item d; and upon completion of development. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 22 No works within the Root Protection Area of retained trees shall take place unless the ACoW is present and has confirmed that the methodology accords with the approved AMS. 24) No development shall take place until the access point and visibility splays as shown in Site Access Arrangement Dwg ITB16002 - GA - 027 Rev C have been laid out and constructed in accordance with the relevant details shown on that drawing. Thereafter they shall be retained for that purpose and kept clear of obstructions .⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
The appeal scheme accords with Local Plan Policy SS11 . It would not be ‘major development’ in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . 65. There would be some adverse effects leading to some conflict with Local Plan Policy EM1. These , though, should be understood in the context of the Policy SS11 allocation. Any Policy SS11 compliant scheme would have some landscape and visual impacts. The appeal scheme’s effects would be localised and any harm would be no more than moderate in the longer term. It would have no significant effect s on trees and accord with Framework paragraph 187 . 66. There would also be benefits in landscape and visual terms compared to the approach favoured by the Council resulting from the creation of a tree belt rather than rel ying purely on on - site landscaping . 67. Overall, the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the National Landscape and be compatible with the Statutory Duty . Moreover, for the reasons outlined above, the scheme would accord with the development plan viewed as a whole and comply with paragraph 189 of the Framework . 68. Although I have not done so , had I concluded that the appeal scheme were to represent ‘major development’ , in…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3373972 (Cornwall Council) — 2026-05-26
📍 Cornwall Council LPA code: E06000052 PINS reference: 3373972 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 March 2026 by Juliet Rogers BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 Land a djacent to Valley Lane, Quenchwell Road, Carnon Downs, Cornwall TR3 6JS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant permission in principle . • The appeal is made by Mr M Yates and Mrs C Mitchell against the decision of Cornwall Council. • The application Ref is PA25/01765. • The development proposed is the construction of a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 5 dwellings. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the construction of a minimum of 4 and a maximum of five dwellings at Land adjacent to Valley Lane, Quenchwell Road, Carnon Downs, Cornwall TR3 6JS , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/01765. Preliminary Matters and Main Issues 2. As part of the appeal, the appellant has submitted a Preliminary Landscape Visual Appraisal 1 . As t his was not before the Council when the application was determined and the subject of consultation, were I to take this into account as part of my decision this would result in procedural unfairness as intere sted parties may not have had the opportunity to provide comments on it . I have, therefore, determined the appeal based on the details submitted considered by the Council a t the application stage . 3. The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing - led development. The permission in principle consent route has two stages. The first stage establis hes whether a site is suitable in principle with the scope of the considerations limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted 2 . All other matters are then considered as part of the second stage, via a Technical Details Consent (TDC) application , including detailed development proposals should permission in principle be granted . This appeal relates to the first of these two stages. Given the limited scope of the application, I have treated any details submitted which c onstitute elements beyond matters relating to location, land use and amount as being indicative . 4. The appeal site is located within the catchment of the Fal and Helford Special Area of Conservation (SAC), a European Designated Site afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2009 (as amended). Whilst not 1 Prepared by FPCR, dated September 2025 2 Paragraph: 012 Reference ID: 58 - 012 - 20180615 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 indicated as a reason for refusal, it is incumbent upon me, as the competent authority, to consider whether the proposal would be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the SAC. As the main parties have addressed this as part of the application, no party would be prejudiced by this matter being dealt with as a main issue. 5. Consequently , the main issues are: • whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development , with particular regard to the local development strategy and the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area ; and • whether the proposal would be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the Fal and Helford SAC . Reasons Local development strategy 6. Policy 2 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 - 2030 (Local Plan) establishes the objectives which underpin the spatial strategy for the delivery of new development, emphasising that growth will be accommodated in the main towns and city where it can best support regeneration. This hierarchical approach is expanded within Policy 3 of the Local Plan through the identification of the main settlements. Carnon Downs is not identified as a main settlement . Notwithstanding this, Policy 3 of the Local Plan does not restrict housing growth from areas other than at the main towns but rather indicates the circumstances where such development would be appropriate. 7. The circumstance o f relevance to the appeal site is where residential development would result in the rounding off of a settlement, within or immediately adjoining it, and of a scale appropriate to its size and role. While the term ‘rounding off’ is not defined within Policy 3 of the Local Plan itself, its supporting text refers to it comprising development on land that is substantially enclosed but outside of the urban form of a settlement and where its edge is clearly defined by a physical feature (or fea tures) that also act as a barrier to further growth. 8. The appeal site is also located beyond the Carnon Downs settlement boundary, as defined within the Feock Neighbourhood Development Plan (FNDP) . The site boundary is separated from t his designation , other than where access off Valley Lane is p roposed, by an area identified in the FNDP as a sensitive sett lement edge which encompasses part of the small stream valley. Properties marked on the Location Plans as The Beeches and The Willows adjoin the site; - bo th of which are also located beyond the settlement boundary . The refore, the site is not within Ca rn on Downs boundary nor is it located immediately adjoining it. 9. The boundaries to the site are clearly defined by landscape features comprising established hedgerows , Quen chwell Road , the aforementioned residential properties and the Carnon Downs Garden Centre . As similarly concluded by the Inspector on a previous appeal 3 , these features e nclose the site and would act as a significant barrier to further growth. 3 Appeal ref: APP/D 0840/W/23/3327622 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 10. Nonetheless, Policy 7 of the Local Plan stipulates that the development of new homes in open countryside , defined as the area outside of the physical boundaries of existing settlements (where they have a clear form and shape), will only be permitted where there are special circumstances. In this case, the designated settlement boundary within the FNDP establishes the physical boundary of the site. As the proposal does not meet any of the special circumstances to development in the open countryside, it confl icts with Policy 7 of the Local Plan . 11. My attention has also been drawn to the CPOAN 4 which further elaborates upon Policy 3 of the Local Plan , highlighting the attributes considered to be components of a suitable site for r ounding off , including that it is likely to be surrounded on at least two sides by existing built development. In the case of the appeal site , the garden centre adjoins one side boundary with The Beech es adjacent another and, t ogether with Quenchwell Road, these surround the equivalent of at least two sides of the site. 12. However, due to the use of the word ‘likely’ is not a prescriptive requirement and, in any event, the contents of the CPOAN provides guidance only to the application of Policy 3 of the Local Plan . It does not form part of the adopted development plan. Furthermore, whether or not a s ite can be described as surrounded by existing built development also requires an assessment of the components which contribute to the character and appearance of an area. 13. As the appeal site is separated from the existing dwellings on Valley Lane by the wooded sensitive edge and the enclosed generous garden setting of The Beeches, visual connections between these properties and the site were partially restricted by existing landscape features at the time of my site visit . However, the presence of the built form nearby is appreciable from various locations within the site, giv en the topography of the stream’s valley. In particular, t he white render ed exterior of the properties between the site and Bissoe Road mean they are prominent features in these views. Similarly, the scale and bulk of the garden centre buildings and the presence of good s and equipment stored close to the sparsely vegetated boundary provides a feeling of being surrounded by built for m . 14. In contrast, visual connections to Quenchwell Road were, at the time of my site visit, blocked by the dense planting on parts of this edge of the site and, due to its elevated position, the carriageway itself wa s hidden. Other than noise from traffic moving along it , the road’s influence on the character of the site is minimal. However, when travelling along the road, particularly towards Carnon Downs, the site is appreciated as a clear gap in the bu i lt form, betwee n the garden centre and the properties between Valley Lane and Bissoe Road and, to a lesser extent, The Beeches. Beyond its junction with Valley Lane , the site forms part of a n area of transition from the main settlement form into the countryside. As similarly observed by the Inspector on the previous appea l, this point of change corresponds with the designated settlement boundary. 15. The situation on the ground also reflects the description of the Cornwall Character Area for Carnon Valley (CCA15) being located within the shelter of a valley where fields are smaller and boundary more sinuous. The proposal would, therefore, result in an extension of Carnon Downs . This is not disputed by the appellant. Furthermore , although t he ability of the site to lend itself to a successful 4 Chief Planning Officer’s Advice Note: Infill/Rounding Off (December 2017) (CPOAN) Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 agricultural enterprise is limited by its small scale and accessibility , these factor s do not alter my conclusio ns regarding the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area, even with the retention of the field pattern and boundary features. 16. S ince the previous appeal, t raffic calming measures have been introduced on Quenchwell Road between its junction with Valley Lane and the garden centre . These works include a highway build out to provide priority to those travelling south along the road , new street lighting and signage , and the relocation of the settlement sign to the other side of the garden centre. T hese changes have , to a small degree, urbanised the highway . However, they have not altered the character of the site nor its immediate surrounds to a degree sufficient for me to conclude the introductio n of residential development in this location would not lead to the visual extension of Carnon Downs into the countryside . 17. Additionally, the recently constructed residential development off Ash Tree Close 5 and the further five dwellings approved in 2024 6 on l and adjoining it , are located nearer to the main form of the settlement and before the aforementioned point of change which travelling out of Carnon Downs . Given the openness to the road near Ash Tree Close and the dominance of built form rather than natural features, these new developments have a character more readily associated with Carnon Downs , despite also located beyond the designated settlement boundary. 18. I conclude that the proposal would not be suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development , with particular regard to the local development strategy and the character and appearance of the area . It, therefore, conflicts with policies 2, 3, 7, 12 , 21 and 23 of the Local Plan which, combined, set out the local development strategy whilst seeking to protect the local landscape and built form character through, amongst other things, making the best use of land . I attach great weight to t he proposal’s conflict with the local development stra tegy while the harm to the character and appearance of the area would be moderate. 19. The decision notice indicates that the proposal conflicts with Policy 8 of the Local Plan. However, as this policy relates to the provision of affordable housing within developments comprising ten (10) dwellings or more, Policy 8 is not determinative in my decision. The fact that the proposal is not seeking to meet the definition of a rural exception site as set out in Policy 9 is not, in and of itself, a reason to refuse the application . Fal and Helford SAC 20. The special interest of the Fal and Helford SAC relates to the saltmarsh, mudflat, sandbank and reef habitats of interest that, amongst others, make up the drowned river valleys of the Fal Estuary and Helford River. The overarching objective for the management of the SAC is the ongoing protection of these internationa lly important habitats. One of the issues preventing this objective being met relates to the increased pressure to access the area for recreational purposes, as well as from urbanisation and da mage caused by pets, resulting from a rise in the population living nearby. 5 Reserved Matters Ref: PA19/11087; dated 23 April 2020 6 Council Ref: PA23/10329 ; dated 21 October 2024 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 21. As the proposal would lead to an increase in the number of people living in the area, it would, therefore, lead to an increase in the number of visitors to the SAC for recreational purposes. When considered alone or in combination with other plans or proje cts, it would have the potential to result in likely significant effects on the SAC. Consequently, it is necessary for me, as the competent authority, to conduct an Appropriate Assessment concerning the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the SAC. 22. As part of the application, the appellant submitted a signed s111 undertaking, together with a fee based on the number of dwellings proposed. This reflects the mitigation fees set out within the Council’s European Sites Mitigation Supplementary Planning Do cument (SPD), as required by policies 22 and 23 of the Local Plan. The Council will use the fees to deliver a Strategic Access Management and Monitoring project for the SAC, so that it is more resilient to visitor pressure. 23. I conclude therefore, that, subject to mitigation, the proposal would not be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the SAC and accords with policies 22 and 23 of the Local Plan, and the SPD in this respect. Other Considerations 24. Several concerns have been made by interested parties regarding the proposal , some of which have already been addressed in the reasoning above . The evidence before me indicates that , as a small part of the site is susceptible to surface water flooding (1 in 100 year) and rainfall (1 in 1000 year), a flood risk assessment will be required as part of any application for TDC. No works to the trees to the rear of the properties along Valley Lane, alongside the stream, form part of the proposal and this area, in any event, lies outside the site boundary. 25. Others relate to detailed development proposals, such as the effect of the proposal on drainage , the condition of Valley Lane, the potenti al to provide a footpath link through the development and biodiversity matters. As such, they fall to be considered at the TDC stage, should such an application be submitted. An application for TDC must be decided in accordance with terms of the permission in principle granted for the site and the relevant policies in the development plan, unless there are material consid erations , such as the Framework, which indicate otherwise. The granting of permission in principle does not mean that a n application for TDC will automatically be approved . Planning Balance and Conclusion 26. The provision of four or five additional dwellings would be beneficial to the local housing stock, with social and economic benefits derived from their construction and occupation. The use of a greenfield site where the re would be an increase in building density gains some support from Policy 21 of the Local Plan f rom an environmental perspective. Given the s ize of the proposal, although these benefits would be moderate in scale, they could be delivered quickly. 27. However, I have found that the site would not be suitable for residential development given its conflict with the local development strategy and it would lead to a moderate level of harm to the character and appearance of the area. My conclusion relating t o the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the SAC is a Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 neutral matter. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole. 28. The evidence before me indicates that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five - year supply of deliverable housing sites, with the latest position, as set out within the Cornwall 5 Year Housing Land Supply Statement (1 July 2025), representing a 3.9 year supply. This deficit is not insignificant and represents a materially different housing supply position from the previous appeal was determined a s, at that time, a five - year supply of deliverable housing sites could be demonstrated. 29. The consequence of the housing supply position is that the presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 11dii of the Framework is engaged . This states that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole . As the FNDP was made in 2017, it exceeds the age required at paragraph 14 of the Framework to meet the exemption to the aforementione d presumption. 30. While t he hierarchical approach to the distribution of new homes across the Council’s area set out at Policy 2 of the Local Plan is broadly consi stent with the Framework as a whole , as confirmed in the Cornwall Interim Policy Position Statement 7 (CIPPS) , the Local Plan’s housing targets are not . Therefore, as also identifie d in the CIPPS, the weight given or the way Policy 3 is applied in decisions has changed as a result of the current housing land supply deficit . I attach moderate weight to the proposal’s conflict with Policy 3 . 31. Policies 7, 12 , 21 and 23 of the Local Plan are broadly consistent with the Framework’s approach to ensuring development is sympathetic to its local character and landscape setting, as well as the enhancement of the natural environment . As I have found that the proposal would lead to a moderate level of harm to the character and appearance of the area, I attach a corresponding moderate weight to the proposal’s conflict with these policies. 32. Consequently, I conclude that the adverse impact s of the proposal do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. 33. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed . Juliet Rogers INSPECTOR 7 April 2025 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
The provision of four or five additional dwellings would be beneficial to the local housing stock, with social and economic benefits derived from their construction and occupation. The use of a greenfield site where the re would be an increase in building density gains some support from Policy 21 of the Local Plan f rom an environmental perspective. Given the s ize of the proposal, although these benefits would be moderate in scale, they could be delivered quickly. 27. However, I have found that the site would not be suitable for residential development given its conflict with the local development strategy and it would lead to a moderate level of harm to the character and appearance of the area. My conclusion relating t o the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the SAC is a
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3376171 (Leeds City Council) — 2026-05-22
📍 Leeds City Council LPA code: E08000035 PINS reference: 3376171 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Hearing held on 18 March 2026 Site visit made on 19 March 2026 by Elaine Moulton BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 Land Off Newton Lane, Ledston WF10 2AW • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Harmony LS Limited against the decision of Leeds City Council. • The application Ref is 24/05828/FU. • The development proposed is Battery Energy Storage Facility and associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Battery Energy Storage Facility and associated works at Land Off Newton Lan e , Ledston WF10 2AW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/05828/FU, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development is taken from the planning application form . I have , however, omitted ‘ Resubmission ’ as it does not describe an act of development . 3. T he Council has indicated in the final Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) , submitted prior to the Hearing, that it now considers that the proposal i s not inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that its first reason for refusal no longer stands. However, as there are objections from interested parties on this matter , I consider that it is necessary to address it as a main issue. 4. The appellant submitted a revised Fire Water Management Plan to the Council following its decision and has provided a response to the comments of West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service (WYFRS) on that document . I acknowledge the complaints that th e Council were late in publishing this information , however, additional time h as been given for interested parties to comment . I am , therefore, satisfied that no one will be prejudiced if I take such evidence into consideration in my decision. 5. The main parties agree that the appeal site lies within the setting of several listed buildings . Although not forming part of the Council’s reason for refusal, I have a statutory duty under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving such buildings or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. It is therefore necessary to consider this matter as a main issue. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Main Issues 6. The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt ; • Whether there is sufficient information to demonstrate that there would be adequate mitigation to reduce the risk of fire, en sure public safety and avoid environmental damage; • The effect of the proposal on the setting of nearby listed buildings; and • Whether other considerations clearly outweigh any harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to amount to very special circumstances. Reasons Whether inappropriate development 7. The appeal site lies within the Green Belt . It comprises part of a field to the north of Newton Lane and to the east of Barnsdale Road and lies close to the development limits of Allerton Bywater . 8. T he Framework, at paragraph 142, identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban spraw l by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are thei r openness and their permanence . 9. At paragraph 153, the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. D evelopment in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within identified exceptions set out at Framework paragraph s 154 and 155. Paragraph 155 provides that development of homes , commerc ial and other development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where criteria a) to d) apply . 10. Policy N33 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review – 2006) (UDP), adopted 19 July 2006, predates the introduction of the concept of grey belt and the exception set out at paragraph 155 . Consequently , i t is more restrictive than, and therefore not fully consistent with, the Framework. As such, being mindful that weight should be afforded to development plan policies based on their degree of consistency with the Framework, I have afforded greater weight to the Framework in assessing whether the proposal would be inappropriate within the Green Belt. Paragraph 155 - Criterion (a) 11. Criterion ( a) is that the development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. The definition of ‘grey belt’ is set out at Annex 2 of the Framework as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b) or (d) in paragraph 143. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 12. The Planning Practice Guidance ( PPG ) sets out how the contribution land makes to the relevant Green Belt purpose should be assessed 1 . I t states that when addressing purpose (a), to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built - up areas, villages should not be considered as large built - up areas . It also states that purpose s ( b) , to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another , and ( d), to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns , relates to the merging of towns and not villages . 13. The appeal site is between Allerton Bywater and Ledston. Although it is agreed by all parties that Ledston is a village, interested parties disagree with the Council and the appellant about Allerton Bywater , contending that in combination with Great Preston it is a town by virtue of its population and facilities . I note, however, that the UDP defines Allerton Bywater as a village . I acknowledge that the UDP was adopted almost 20 years ago , n onetheless, my observations on my visit do no t suggest that it has developed in the intervening period to the extent that it sh ould now be regarded as a town . 14. Consequently, in accordance with the PPG , the appeal site cannot make a strong contribution to Green Belt purpos es ( a), ( b) or ( d) as it lies between two village s . The relationship of the site to Kippax, which is defined as a town in the development plan, does not alter my finding in this regard , given th at Allerton Bywater and Ledston are the nearer settlement s between which the appeal site lies . 15. The appeal site forms part of the designated Ledsham and Ledston Special Landscape Area and is within the risk impact zone of the Fairburn and Newton Ings Reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Even so, the site does not fall within any of the areas or assets set out in footnote 7 of the Framework (other than Green Belt ) and is not , therefore, excluded from being grey belt by virtue of footnote 7. 16. I th us find, for the foregoing reasons, that the appeal site is grey belt land as it falls within the definition set out in the Framework. N ever theless, a judgement must be made as to whether the proposal would fundamentally undermine the purposes ( taken together ) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. 17. The proposal would be sited close to Ledston Substation and to Allerton Bywater Business Park in a location where there are overhead powerlines. N ever theless, a s it w ould introduce a range of industrial plant into an area of countryside which is currently devoid of built form, I find that it would conflict with Green Belt purpose 143c), to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. 18. T he proposal requires a specific location where a grid connection is possible . T he appellant has sought to demonstrate , in an Alternative Site Assessment (ASA) , that there are no suitable and available alternative sites where connection to any o f the substations within the development plan are a can be achieved . I n the absence of anything to demonstrate that the conclusions of the ASA are unreliable, and as no unconsidered site has been presented , I have no reason to con clude that an alternative, and less harmful, site exists. 1 PPG Green Belts - Paragraph: 00 5 Reference ID: 64 - 006 - 20250225 Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 19. Therefore, although the proposal would be sited on a field within the rural area, it would not undermine purpose (e) , to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land . 20. Although I have found that the proposal would conflict with Green Belt purpose (c) , given my findings on purposes (a), (b) , (d) and (e) , and having regard to the extent of the site, which is a very small proportion of th e Green Belt across the area of the plan, I find that the proposal cannot reasonably be said to fundamentally undermine all of the Green Belt purposes taken together. 21. For the reasons set out above, I find that criteri on ( a) of the paragraph 155 exception applies to this case . Paragraph 155 - Criterion (b) 22. Criteri on ( b ) requires there to be a demonstrable unmet need for the proposed development . The PPG outlines that electricity storage can enable us to use energy more flexibly and de - carbonise our energy system cost - effectively, for example, by helping to balance the system at lower cost, maximising the usable output from intermittent low carbon generation (e.g. solar and wind), and deferring or avoiding the need for costly network upgrades and new generation capacity 2 . The PPG therefore categorises Battery Energy Storage System ( BESS ) facilities as ‘renewable and low carbon energy’. 23. The Government has well publicised net zero ambitions and targets and, I note that the Council declared a climate change emergency in 20 19 . The proposed development would store surplus electricity resulting from periods where the electricity network is effectively over supplied by existing energy generating sources, both renewable and non - renewable. Such energy, which would otherwise be wast ed, can then be exported back into the grid during low generation periods or at periods of high demand. Consequently, although not a producer of renewable energy, the proposed BESS would, nonetheless, make a meaningful contribution towards the delivery of climate change through renewable and low carbon energy and meeting net zero targets. In accordance with paragraph 168 of the Framework, substantial weight is afforded to such benefits which demonstrates that there is unmet need for the propos al . Thus, I find that criteri on ( b ) of the paragraph 155 exception applies to this case. Paragraph 155 - Criterion (c) 24. Criteri on ( c ) requires that the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular regard to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. 25. The locational requirement for the proposal, its proximity to Leds ton Substation, has implications for the accessibility of the site in this rural area. However, except for the construction and decommissioning phases, the facility would not generate much traffic and could not reasonably be considered to be significant development in this regard . 26. In addition, there is no compelling evidence before me to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access could not be provided and secured by condition , and I note that the Highway Authority did not object . 2 Renewable and low carbon energy - Paragraph: 032 Reference ID: 5 - 032 - 20230814 Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 27. Overall, I consider that the proposal would be in a sustainable location having regard to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework and that paragraph 155(c) applies to this case. Paragraph 155 - Criterion ( d ) 28. As the proposal is not major development involving the provision of housing, the ‘Golden Rules’ do not apply. Inappropriate development conclusion 29. Consequently, I find that the proposal would satisfy the requirements of paragra ph 155 and, therefore, it would not b e inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Thus, it is not necessary for me to address whether the proposal would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and, in the absence of any identified Green Belt harm, no very special circumstances are required to justify the development . Fire risk 30. The Council ha s cited , in its second reason for refusal, that the proposal does not include adequate mitigation to reduce the risk of fire as recommended within the National Fire Chief Council’s 2022 guidance 3 (the Guidance) . W ithin the final SoCG , t he Council has agreed that following an update to the Guidance in December 2025, the only conflict is in respect of vehicle access from the highway , having initially also rais ed concerns about BESS separation. 31. I note that WYFRS has raised concerns that a single point of access to Newton Lane is proposed, as the Guidance sets out that it is preferable to also provide an alternative access point, taking account of wind direction . WYFRS has not, howev er, justified why it considers that the proposed access around the perimeter of the compound is not a ‘loop’ type that the Guidance suggests as a suitable a lternative to the provision of a second access point . 32. Interested parties have suggested that fire service vehicles would not be able to negotiate the bends in the perimeter access . Nonetheless , as such bends would be outside of the compound and not flanked on the outer side by any form of bound ary treatment , it is reasonable to consider that fire service vehicles would have the space to be able to manoeuvre around the compound in either direction . Therefore, noting that wind direction can be variable, if one route around the compound was obscured by a smoke plume, the water supply contained in the Su DS /firewater retention pond could be accessed from another direction . Furthermore, in the unlikely event that the access to the site from Newton Lane was impassible , given the limited separation distance and notwithstanding that there is a narrow belt of trees between the road and the site , I am satisfied that access could be gained from Barnsdale Road on foot in an emergency . 33. I find, therefore, based on the evidence before me, that the proposed site access arrangements accord with the Guidance and are satisfactory in respect of public safety . 34. The appeal plans show that 3 m etre BESS separation can be achieved , which exceeds the Guidance as revised in December 2025, and it is indicated that the BESS units would be tested to the UL9540A latest standard , as would the fire 3 Grid Scale Battery Energy Storage System Planning – Guidance for Fire and Rescue Services Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 suppression system that would be installed. The site would be continuously monitored to detect any faults and any affected battery would be taken offline to minimise the risk of thermal runaway. I am, th us , satisfied that the risk of a fire starting and spreading to other units, would be minimise d subject to appropriate measures and controls being secured by condition . 35. Although the c ompound is wholly in flood zone 1 , where there is a low probab i li ty of flooding , p hotographs provided by an interested party shows that the site occasionally floods . T here is , however, no compelling evidence before me to suggest that the proposed SuDS could not be designed to ensure that it appropriate ly addresses surface water run - off , or that there would be a material risk of thermal runaway due to on - site flooding . The imposition of conditions would secure full details of the SuDS as well as its implementation and management and would ensure that water discharge does not increase the risk of flooding or contamination . 36. I have had regard to the concerns expressed by interested parties about matters which might prevent the WY FRS from being able to tackle any fire s , including whether the SuDS pond would contain sufficient water, whether such water could be drawn from the pond, and that only one pumping chamber is proposed. I understand the concerns in relation to the risks posed by the proposal and the absence of finalised details as to how such risks would be mitigated . I have also had regard to the instances of fires at BESS sites that have been brough t to my attention. 37. It is, however, commonplace for BESS approvals to include conditions requiring battery safety, fire risk and firewater management plans , and to secure a final emergency response plan . This ensure s that the developer can procure the most technologically advanced and safest sys tems and that the agreed plans are appropriate for the systems to be installed. It would be the responsibility of the Council to discharge any such conditions imposed , and it would be able to seek advice from relevant consultees as to w hether such plans were fit for purpose . For these reasons, I am not persuaded that the use of conditions would be inappropriate in this case or that further evidence is required to be satisfied that the risk of fire could be appropriately mitigated . 38. I therefore find that sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that adequate mitigation to reduce the risk of fire, ensure public safety and avoid environmental damage could be secured through planning conditions. The proposal would not conflict with UDP Policy GP5 which, amongst other things, requires that proposals should seek to avoid problems of pollution and danger to health and life. In addition, there would be no conflict with Policy Water 2 of the Natural Resources and Waste Local Pla n, adopted January 2013 , which requires that development within areas adjace nt to sensitive water bodies, must demonstrate control the quality of surface water run - off for the lifetime of the development . It would also accord with the similar aims of the Framework, including those set out at paragraph 102. 39. The second reason for refusal also refers to UDP Policy N35 . However , as this relates to best and most versatile agricultural land, i t is not relevant to this main issue . Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 Heritage Assets 40. A Grade II listed milepost is located near to the appeal site, within the highway verge adjoining Barnsdale Road. It is described in the list description as a stone post of triangular section with flat semi - circular head, cast - iron plates with raised lette ring bolted onto the head and each of the 2 outer faces. 41. The significance and special interest of the milestone are derived from its associative and historic value as a way marker. Its setting comprises the roadside. Given that the route it relates to would be unaltered, the proposal would not obstruct the funct ional use of the milestone and therefore would not harm the way that this listed structure is experienced. Thus, the proposal would not harm the setting, or the significance of this designated heritage asset. 42. The Grade II listed Low Lodge was constructed in the early 19 th century , along with the associated gate piers and wall which form part of the listing and is located a short distance to the north of the appeal site on the opposite side of Barnsdale Road. Low Lodge is a single storey building, in the G othic style , built in sandstone ashlar with a slate roof. The architectural features include a deeply recessed doorway which h as a hoodmould, a window of 2 arched lights with hollow spandrels and hoodmould, and moul d ed corni c e to an em battled parapet . The low screen walls each side of the entrance to the drive are concave in plan with square piers at each end. The significance and special interest of Low Lodge, the gate piers and wall are , in part, derived from their aesthetic value arising from their attractive design. 43. The B arn, approximately 10 metres west of Home Farm Farmhouse is also Grade II listed . It was built, with integral stables, byre and dovecote, in the earlier 18 th century , as part of the former Kippax Park Home Farm, associated with the former Kippax Hall. Its significance , in the context of this appeal, derives from its historic value as part of a historic farmstead. 44. The significance of Low Lodge and the B arn is also derived from their historical association with Kippax Hall, now demolished, and its parkland . The extract of the 1893 map provided by the appellant shows the parkland to be located to the northwest of the appeal site on the opposite side of Barnsdale Road. Low Lodge would have served as a gatehouse to K ippax Hall and Home Farm would have produced food and income for its occupants . The relationship of the listed buildings to the parkland provide s a historic understanding of the hi erarchy and functional links to the former Kippax Hall , so contributing to a sense of social history. 45. Ledston Substation adjoins Low Lodge and lies between it and the appeal site. The Barn , which is further away , would be separated from the proposal by several intervening fields . Both listed buildings are on the opposite side of Barnsdale Road to the appeal site. 46. The proposal would not , therefore, intrude upon the immediate surrounds of these listed buildings and would have no physical impact on the m . Furthermore, the appeal site does not form part of the parkland and does not contribute to the historical relationship of these listed building s to Kippax Hall. For t hese reasons, I consider that the proposal would not harm the way that Low L odge and the B arn are experienced and, therefore, would not have a harmful effect on their setting or significance . Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 47. The Grade I Ledston Hall (the Hall) , was started circa 1200 as a chapel and kitchen built by the monks of Pontefract Abbey and extended circa 1500. It was then acquired after the Dissolution and incorporated into a courtyard house circa 1560 which was then subordinated to a grandiose scheme in the 17 th century. Its architectural features include the symmetrical 11 bays of the principal range of the Hall , the straight flight of steps protected by a wrought iron balustrade which leads to the principal entranc e , the piano nobile , the Dutch Gables that disguise the roof line , and the four corner turrets of the wings which have a low ogee - shaped pyramidal lead cap with ball finial. 48. The stable block and entrance gates and lodges, sited close to the Hall, are also Grade I listed and the Garden House adjoining the west terrace is Grade II* listed. Several Grade II* and Grade II listed structures are also located within the garden of the Hall. These form part of the Grade II* Registered Park and Garden (RPG) which comprises a designed landscape immediately surrounding the hall , and an area of pasture and wooded parkland to the north, North Park. According to the list entry, t he RPG, the w alled gardens and terraces are probably of late 17 th century and early 18 th century with elements of the garden designed by Charles Bridgeman, as shown in plans dated 1738. The North Park is said to have 17 th century origins. 49. The Hall, associated buildings and structures, and its designed landscape is situated in an elevated position some distance from the appeal site on the edge of Ledston village, with North Park further away. The significance of the listed buildings , in the context of this appeal, derives from the grand architectural qualities of the Hall , the surviving historic fabric and the relationship to the designed landscape. The significance of the RPG is, in part, derived from its designed form and its relationship w ith the Hall. 50. Due to the topography and intervening vegetation, I find that it would be unlikely for the proposal to be prominent or harmful within views from and towards these designated heritage assets. However, the proposal would change the character of the approach to the Hall from Barnsdale Road . Whilst this would only affect a small part of the route and would be mitigated to some extent by the proposed landscaping, I find that the proposal would harm the significance of Ledston Hall and the associated buildings an d structures . Such harm to each of the se heritage assets would, in my view, be at the lower end of ‘less than substantial’ , but, n ever theless , of considerable importance and weight . 51. At the request of an interested party, I visited Ledston village which contains a Grade II listed building within its core , now known as Manor Barn Cottages. It is a two - storey, stone built former barn enclosed by a stone wall. Based on my observations and in the context of this appeal , I consider that the significance of this listed building derives from its historic value as an agricultural building . D ue to the limited, if any, intervisibility between the appeal site and the village, I consider that the proposal would not harm the way that this listed building is experienced , and its setting and significance would be preserved. 52. Although I agree that there are many other buildings within Ledston which have a degree of architectural and historic interest, there is no evidence before me to suggest that they should be treated as non - designated heritage assets. In any event, for the reasons given in the preceding paragraph, I consider that the Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 pr oposal would not harm the character and appearance, or any sign i ficance, of the village and the other buildings it contains in addition to Manor Barn Cottages . 53. As set out above , I have identified that there would be harm to the Grade I listed Ledston Hall , Grade I listed stable block and entrance gates and lodges, Grade II* listed west terrace and the Grade II* and Grade II listed structures located within the garden of the Hall . Such harm individually and cumulatively would be less than substantial . 54. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the Framework, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Although of significant importance and weight, I find that t he less than substantial harm that I have identified to the significance of the designated heritage assets is , nonetheless, outweighed by the public benefi ts of the proposal which I have set out above. Consequently, it accords with the Framework and the expectation of section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 . Other Considerations 55. The appeal site is 600 metres from , and within the impact risk zone of, the Fairburn and Newton Ings SSSI, which is a nationally notable wetland recognised for its value to overwintering, breeding and migrant birds as well as for its diverse botanical communities and invertebrates. Lin Dike , which passes close to the appeal site, flows through the SSS I . Consequently, t he discharge of polluted fire water run - off has the potential to adversely affect Lin Dike and, in turn, the SSSI. 56. Concerns have also been raised that contaminated fire water run - off could not be retained on site after an incident, and that there is no mechanism in place to ensure tankers could remove contaminated water within an appropriate time frame. However, the main parties agree that mitigation measures c ould be secure d to ensure that contaminated firewater is safely within the site and that there is no risk of it being discharged into the adjacent Lin Dike . Furthermore, I note that the Environment Agency and Natural England have not objected to the scheme . 57. I n the absence of any contrary technical evidence , there is no basis upon which I could reach a different conclusion. Accordingly , I find that , subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal would not have likely significan t effects the qualifying features of the SSSI . 58. I acknowledge that full details of the proposal have not been provided. However, a plan setting the scale parameters of the proposal and others showing indicative elevations have been included as appeal documents. Contrary to the view of interested parties, I am satisfied that such plans , together with the supporting documents, provide sufficient information to describe the proposal and to enable an assessment of it , including its impact on the character and appearance of the area. 59. As identified in the appellant’s Landscape and Visual Appraisal and Landscape Technical Note , the site is mainly experienced in short distance views from a short section of the Ledston 8 Public Right of Way (PRoW) that crosses the site , and along short sections of Barnsdale Road and Newton Lane. Otherwise, the site is currently screened by mature hedgerows and trees . I t is , however, reasonable to consider that the site will become more exposed if the considerable number of Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 trees within the Barnsdale Road tree belt, identified for removal due to Ash Dieback , are felled. 60. The proposed development would bring a change from an open green field to an industrial compound containing utilitarian structures. E xisting planting would partially screen the development when initially installed . Nonetheless, it would be seen as an urban feature in the identified short distance views. 61. Many heavy standard trees would be planted as part of a landscaping scheme which would, over time, soften the appearance of the development in views from Newton Lane and the PRoW . However, as there is no room for tree planting along the west side of the compound it would be highly visible along Barnsdale Road if/when Ash trees are removed. 62. Although 40 years is more than a generation, so a considerable period, the proposal is not permanent and I could impose conditions to ensure that the permission would be restricted to this time period, and to require subsequent decommissioning and reinstatement of the land . I am satisfied that this would, to a limited extent, temper the impact of the proposal as would its siting close to the other industrial features of the Leds ton Substation and Allerton Bywater Business Park . Furthermore, conditions can be imposed to secure the approval of the full details of the proposal. Nevertheless, I find that it would result in localised harm to the character and appearance of the area for the duration of the development. 63. The main parties agree that the appeal site is classified as Grade 3a agricultural land. As such, the proposal would result in the temporary loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. N ever theless, the appeal site, at 1.71 hectares , could make only a limited contribution to food production and, therefore, the proposal would be unlikely to make a meaningful impact on food security. 64. Overall, although I have found localised harm to the character and appearance of the area and through the loss of land for food production, this would not outweigh the significant benefit s arising from the contribution that the proposal would make to the mitigation of climate change and the regulation of electricity flows within the wider supply networ k, as set out above . The proposal would not , therefore, seriously conflict with the interests of protecting areas of the best and most versatile agricultural land , a nd , as such, the granting of planning permission would not be contrary to UDP Poli cy N35. Other Matters 65. The appellant’s noise impact assessment (NIA) is based on an indicative scheme and is limited to the nearest properties. Nonetheless, in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary , there is no reason to dispute its findings. As such , in line with the conclusions of the NIA , I consider that noise from the propos al would not lead to unaccep t able internal noise levels within the closest dwellings , which can reasonably be expected to be the most likely to be affected by noise arising from the proposal . I note that the Council has not objected on such grounds . I therefore find that the living conditions of nearby residents would not be adversely affected by the proposal . 66. It has been suggested that a financial bond should be secured for the decommissioning and restoration of the site to ensure that this would not be at the public’s expense. However, this is not common practice in BESS approvals, and Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 there is no compelling evidence before me to suggest that the re is a material risk that decommissioning and restora t i o n works would not be completed by the appellant or a future owner of the development . Therefore, the absence of any mechanism to secure a financial bond does not weigh against the proposal. Planning Obligation 67. The appeal is supported by a planning obligation in the form of an agreement , dated 23 February 2026 , made pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Agreement ). Consideration of planning obligations is to be undertaken having regard to paragraph 58 of the Framework and the statutory requirements contained in Regulation 122 and 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations, 2010 (the Regulations). 68. The Agreement makes provision for the payment of an onsite biodiversity net gain (BNG) monitoring contribution of £3,000 to meet the Council’s costs for the monitoring of the significant increase in on - site habitat biodiversity value that would arise from the development, and which would form an integral part of it . As the contribution will assist in ensuring that conditions relating to BNG are complied with , I find that it would be ne cessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and would be directly related to it . In addition, t he amount has not been disputed, and there is nothing before me that would lead me to conclude that it would not be fairly and reasonabl y related in scale and kind to the development. The Agreement therefore accords with the Framework and the Regulation s . Conditions 69. The main parties provided me with agreed conditions, which I have revie we d a nd amended in line with guidance and best practice , and to ensure consistency and clarity . Where amendments have been made to the wording of the suggested conditions, these have not changed the substance of them. 70. I have, in the interests of certainty, imposed condition s that specif y that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans , which includes the para meter plan referred to above , and to limit the export capacity of the BESS. 71. I have also imposed a condition limiting the period of the proposed development to 40 years as that was the basis of my assessment. It is appropriate and necessary to impose condition s to secure the decommissioning of the development and the restoration of the site at the end of that timeframe , or sooner if the development is no longer in use . Such conditions are required to protect the Green Belt from permanent incursion, and in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. A pre - commencement condition covering the management of soil on the site is necessary in the interests of agricultural land quality. 72. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area , approval of the full details of the BESS and associated equipment is necessary . As no evidence is before me that such requirements are relevant to planning and /or the development , I have simplified the condition from that which was agreed by the main parties by removing the list of requirements relating to security measures . Nonetheless, t he appellant is aware of the advice of West Yorkshire Police and ma y choose to incorporate the recommended measures in the details submitted to satisfy the condition. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 73. I have imposed , in the interests of the character and appearance of the area , conditions requiring approval and implementation of site levels and detailed tree and hedgerow protection measures . These are pre - commencement condition s as levels need to be agreed before any works commence and to ensure that the trees and hedge row s are retained and protected over the full course of construction, decommissioning and restoration works. I have, however, omitted the requirement that protection measures should be employed during the operational phase of the development as there is nothing before me to suggest that there is a risk of loss or damage to trees and hedgerows during that time. 74. Conditions regarding approval , implementation and verification of hard and soft landscaping works are also necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area . However, it is not reasonable to require that landscaping works are maintained for the lifetime of the development as h as been suggested . I have, therefore, amended the wording of the condition to require replacement planting during the standard period of five years which should allow it to mature and become established. 75. I have , in the interests of highway safety , imposed conditions relating to the construction of the site access and visibility splays , and which specify the position of the access gates . 76. I acknowledge the concern expressed by i nterested parties that the provision of visibility splay s would involve land outside of the application site , but there is no compelling evidence to suggest that the requirements in this regard could not be me t . I have also considered t he use of a Grampian condition to secure the visibility splays , as discussed at the Hearing. However, a s the evidence before me indicates that the land required in this regard is either within the site or on the public highway, and no p hysical alteration to the public highway would be needed , I do not consider that such a negatively worded condition , that prohi bits develo pment until the splays are in place , is necessary . 77. In the interests of protecting the enjoyment and safety of the users of the PRoW that crosses the site, I have imposed a condition requiring that it is protected and improved. I also consider that it is necessary to control any construction, decommissioning and restoration works in the interests of protecting the living conditions of nearby residents, highway safety and to protect the environment . However, to ensure that the agreed measures reflect the circumstances at the time that decommissioning and rest oration takes place , which may be materially different to the construction phase, I have split the requirements into two conditions . I have adopted t he same timing clause for the decommissioning and restoration phase a s that imposed in condition 5 to ensure consistency . 78. The controls to protect the users of the PRoW and the construction phase mus t be secured through pre - commencement condition s to ensure protection measures are agreed and in place prior to the start of any construction works. 79. I consider that it is reasonable and necessary to ensure that defects to the public highway arising from the development are identified and made good. To that effect, I have amended the condition as suggested by the main parties and imposed a condition to secure a baseline survey prior to the commencement of development, to establish the condition of the road prior to the start of construction works . I have also imposed a separate condition that requires the agreement and Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 implementation of a method statement to secure surveys at specified stages of the development and the submission and approval of remediation works. Such amendments have not changed the substance of the suggested condition . 80. A geophysical survey , provided with the appeal documents , indicates that there is the potential for archaeological remains to be found within the site. I am, therefore, satisfied that a condition is required to secure archaeological recording s. This is a pre - commencement condition as, by their nature, such investigations would largely take place before construction works commence. 81. In the interests of minimising impacts on biodiversity of the nearby Lin Dike and on - site , management of works are necessary . I have simplified and combined the suggested conditions into one to require the provision of Construction Environmental Management Plan to avoid repetition and have clarified that it relates to the construction, decommissioning and restoration works, given that biodiversity can be affected during these phases of the development. For the same reason, I have imposed conditions to secure the provision and management of a buffer zone along the Lin Dike, and details of the outfall and headwall to Lin Dike . A condition securing Landscape and Biodiversity Net Gain Management Plan (BNGMP) to provide a significant increase in on - site habitat biodiversity value and a monitoring plan , is also necessary in accordance with the PPG . The se are pre - commencement condition s to ensure that appropriate measures and enhancements are identified and put in place before development commences. 82. I have omitted any reference to the minimum number of units to be delivered from the wording of the BNGMP condition , as was agreed by the main parties at the Hearing . In addition, I do not consider that it is necessary to provide details of how the BNGMP will be funded and confirmation that it can be delivered. I have therefore omitted this requirement from the con d ition . 83. To enhance and protect biodiversity, conditions are required to secur e monitoring reports in respect of the implementation of the BNGMP , to secure bat roosting and bird nesting features and to require confirmation t hat such features have been provided, and to requir e the agreement of a lighting design strategy. However, I do not consider that it is necessary for the Council to approve t he required confirmation that the approved ba t and bird features have been installed and have omitted that requirement from the condition as worded in this decision 84. To protect the living conditions of nearby residents, I have imposed conditions that restrict operational sound levels and requi res testing to confirm compliance with such levels, and restricting hours of working during the construction, decommissioning and site restoration phases . Again , I do not consider that it is necessary for the Council to approve the required confirmation that the development complies with the specified operation al noise levels , and I have adjusted the wording of the condition accord ingly. 85. As discussed previously , conditions are necessary to ensure that a final battery safety management plan, emergency response plan, risk management plan and fire water management plan are approved and implemented to ensure the safe operation of the site in the interests of public safety and the protection of the environment and biodiversity . Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 86. To minimise the risks of surface water flooding I have imposed a condition that requires compl iance with the submitted Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment Report . Conclusion 87. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed. Elaine Moulton INSPECTOR APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Stephanie Hall Barrister, Kings Chambers Steven Longstaff ELG Planning Louise Wood ELG Planning Tessa Fletcher Harmony Energy Jim Tough Abbott Risk Consultancy Ltd Mark Evans CMLI Urban Green FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Phillipa Plumtree - Varley Principal Legal Officer David Newbury Group Manager – Development Management INTERESTED PARTIES: Councillor James Lewis Ward Member Lynne Howard Local resident Alan Taylor Local resident DOCUMENTS Document 1 Extract from the Ash Dieback map Document 2 Planning Obligations Summary and Title Verification – Leeds City Council Document 3 Community Infrastructure Levy Compliance Statement – Leeds City Council Document 4 An updated/amended list of conditions Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and such other drawings and documents as may be approved pursuant to other conditions of this permission : • Location Plan – PA - LS - LP_Rev H (dated 25.07.2023) • Proposed Parameters Plan – PA - LS - PSP_Rev H (dated 18.09.2 023) 3) The Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) shall have an exported capacity not exceeding 25 MWac . 4) Planning permission is granted for a temporary period only and shall cease to have effect 40 years following the date of receipt of the Final Operational Notification from the District Network Operator (or equivalent organisation). Written confirmation sha ll be submitted to the l ocal p lanning a uthority within 14 working days of the date of its receipt from the District Network Operator (or equivalent organisation). 5) Eighteen months before the end of the 40 - year operational period, taken from the Final Operational Notification date submitted under Condition 4, a Decommissioning and Restoration Scheme (DRS) for the removal of the Battery Energy Storage System and all as sociated approved development under, on and over the land within the site shall be submitted to , and approved in writing by, the l ocal p lanning a uthority . The DRS shall include a timetable, details and measures to achieve and address the following: i) Removal of the development from the land, inclusive of the outfall and headwall to Lin Dike, the site access from Newton Lane and all cables and pipework ii) Engineering of the land to return it to its previous or enhanced appearance, including a method statement for the handling and laying out of the original soils stripped from the site iii) Returning the land to an agricultural land classification of not less tha n Grade 3a (good quality land), to be confirmed via an independent Agricultural Land Classification Report iv) Retention of any approved planting and its protection during the decommissioning phase, and for all protection measures to be removed on full decommissioning v) Removal of signage required by this planning permission vi) Provision of hard and soft boundary treatment with Newton Lane for the full width of the approved site access (once removed), inclusive of protection measures for existing plants either side of the former access and full details of new plants. The approved DRS shall be implemented, achieved and completed within 12 months of the end of the 40 - year period taken from the date submitted under Condition 4. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 6) In the event the development ceases to export electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12 months, it will be deemed to have ceased to be required. A Decommissioning and Restoration Scheme (DRS) for the removal of the BESS and all associated approved development under, on and over the land within the site shall be submitted to , and approved in writing by, the l ocal p lanning a uthority within 3 months of the deemed cessation date. The DRS shall include a timetable, details and measures to achieve and address the requirements i – vi of Condition 5. The approved DRS shall be implemented, achieved and completed within 12 months of the l ocal p lanning a uthority’s written approval being issued. 7) Prior to their erection on site, external details (specifications, measurements, design, colour and finishes) of the battery containers, transformer containers, PCS units, substation, control room, switch room, storage/office container, gates, fencing, ext ernal lighting, CCTV and associated structures shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority . The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 8) No development shall commence until a scaled plan(s) showing existing site ground levels and proposed finished site ground levels in conformity with the Firewater Management Plan ref. GON.0238.0141v7 (received 06.01.2026) and the Proposed Site and Earthwor ks Plan ref. PA_22_PSPa Rev. K have been submitted to , and approved in writing by , the l ocal p lanning a uthority . The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 9) Prior to commissioning of the BESS , the vehicular access from Newton Lane shall be fully constructed in accordance with plan ref. LTP/5076/V1.01F. The vehicular access gradient shall not exceed a maximum of 1 in 25 for the first 10m from the highway and shall be hard bound surfaced in an ap propriate naturalised colour and drained for the initial 25m from Newton Lane. The surface and substructure of the approved vehicular access road shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter for the lifetime of the de velopment. The approved access shall not be brought into use until the visibility splays shown on plan ref. LTP/5076/V1/01.01 H have been cleared of any obstruction exceeding 1m in height above the adjoining carriageway . The visibility splays shall be retained as such for the lifetime of the development. 10) Gates across the site access road to the development site shall be set back 5 metres from the back edge of the highway, and only open inwards into the development site. 11) No development shall commence until a Statement of Construction Practice and Traffic Management Plan (CPTMP) has been submitted to , and approved in writing by , the l ocal p lanning a uthority . The CPTMP shall be based on the following requirements and details: i) Construction vehicle routing to and from the site shall be limited to Barnsdale Road and directly to the site access point on Newton Lane ii) The means of access, location of site compound, storage, and parking (including workforce parking) (temporary or otherwise), the means of loading Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 and unloading of all contractors' plant, equipment, materials and vehicles and associated traffic management measures iii) Timings of deliveries to and from the site iv) Methods to prevent mud, grit and dirt being carried out of the site on to the public highway v) Measures to control the emissions of dust and dirt during construction vi) How the CPTMP will be made publicly available by the developer. The approved CPTM P shall be implemented at the commencement of works on the site and shall thereafter be retained and employed until completion of the works on the site and shall be made publicly available for the lifetime of the construction phase of the development in accordance with the approved method of publicity . 12) Eighteen months before the end of the 40 - year operational period, taken from the Final Operational Notification date submitted under Condition 4, a Statement of Decommissioning and Restoration Practice and Traffic Management Plan ( DR PTMP) shall be submitted to , and approved in writing by, the l ocal p lanning a uthority based on the requirements and details set out in condition 11. Upon decommissioning of the development and for the duration of site restoration the approved DR PTMP shall be implemented until completion of the approved Restoration Scheme pursuant to conditions 5 and/or 6 (whichever relevant). The DR PTMP shall be made publicly available for the lifetime of the decommissioning and restoration phases of the development in accordance with the approved method of publicity. 13) No development shall commence until a baseline survey of the condition of Barnsdale Road ( for a distance of 50m either side of the crossroad junction with Newton Lane and Park Lane ) and Newton Road ( from the crossroad junction and the farthest point of the site access from that junction ) has been submitted to , and approved in writing by , the local planning authority . 14) Prior to commissioning of the BESS , a Defect Remediation Method Statement (DRMS) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority . The DRMS shall include : i) Confirmation that further condition surveys will be carried out following the completion of construction works , and prior to the commenceme nt and the completion of decommissioning and restoration works . ii) The timescale s within which the results of the further condition survey s shall be submitted to the local planning authority. iii) The timescale within which details of remediation works to address defects to the public highway that are associated with the operation of the development , as identified in the further condition surveys undertaken following the completion of construction works and the completion of decommissioning and restoration works , shall be submitted to the local planning authority for its written approval. iv) How defects to the public highway associated with the operation of the development that are identified during routi ne inspections of the highway and are deemed to be a danger to the public shall be addressed . Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 The provisions of the approved DRMS shall be fully implemented and any remediation works shall be completed within three months of the date of the app roval by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. 15) No development shall commence until a Public Footpath Improvement and Protection Scheme (PFIPS) for Public Footpath Ledston No. 8 has been carried out in accordance with details that shall be submitted to , and approved in writing by , the l ocal p lanning a uthority . The PFIPS shall provid e practical and appropriate measures to protect the safety of users and their right of passage along Public Footpath Ledston No. 8 during the construction, operational, decommissioning and restoration phases of the development and shall include full details of : i) a clearly demarcated crossing point on the site access road for footpath users ii) footpath surface improvements iii) warning signage to the footpath The approved measures to protect the footpath users shall be retained for the lifetime of the development and for the decommissionin g and site restoration phases after which time they shall be removed . 16) No development shall commence until a programme of archaeological recording has been conducted , by an appropriately qualified and experienced archaeological consultant , in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which shall have been submitted to , and approved in writing by , the l ocal p lanning a uthority . 17) No development shall take place until a Construction and Ecological Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to , and approved in writing by, the l ocal p lanning a uthority . The CEMP shall put in place measures to retain and protect the 0.68 Habitat Units, 0.72 Hedgerow Units and 1.12 Watercourse Units as identified in the On - site Habitat (A1), Hedgerow (B1), and Watercourse (C1) Baseline Units to be Retained and Enhanced in the Biodiversity Metric (submitted to the l ocal p lanning a uthority on 08.10.2024) and i nclude the following: i) An Environmental Risk Assessment detailing the potential damage to valuable habitats caused by construction / decommissioning/ restoration activities ii) Identification of "biodiversity protection zones" , environmentally sensitive areas and buffer zones iii) Measures to avoid , reduce and/or mitigate impacts during construction / decommissioning/ restoration works iv) Location and timings of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features, v) T imes during construction / decommissioning/ restoration when specialist ecologists need to be present to oversee works vi) Details of management responsibilities, including an appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works or a suitably qualified ecologis t vii) Use of protective fences to BS 5837:2012, exclusion barriers and warning signs. The construction / decommissioning/ restoration phases of the development shall take place in accordance with the provi sions of the approved CEMP. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 18) No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision and management of a minimum 10 metre wide buffer zone alongside the Lin Dike waterbody has been submitted to , and approved in writing by, the l ocal p lanning a uthority . The buffer zone scheme shall be free from built development and shall include: i) Scaled plans showing the extent and layout of the undeveloped buffer zone ii) Details of any proposed vegetation enhancements and/or planting scheme iii) Details of any proposed habitat improvement within the buffer zone iv) Details demonstrating how the undeveloped buffer zone will be protected and managed over the long - term during the construction, oper a tional, decom missioning and site restoration phases. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme until restoration of the site has been completed. 19) No development shall commence until a detailed design plan of the outfall and headwall to the Lin Dike waterbody has been submitted to , and approved in writing by, the l ocal p lanning a uthority . The plan shall detail: i) The outfall and headwall set back from the channel and angled 45 degrees pointing downstream ii) S cour protection which if needed should be of the minim um appropriate size iii) The headwall should be hand built and minimise encroachment into the riparian zone iv) The m ethod and timescale for removing the outfall, headwall and any scour protection measures during the site restoration phase following removal of the development. The approved design plan shall be implemented at the commencement of works on the site and shall thereafter be retained until removed in accordance with the approved timescale and Restoration Plan pursuant to conditions 5 and/or 6 (whichever is relevant). 20) No development shall commence until a Plants Protection Scheme (PPS) has been submitted to , and approved in writing by , the l ocal p lanning a uthority . The PPS shall detail measures , in accordance with BS5837 , to be employed to protect trees and hedgerow s to be retained in and around the site during the construction, decommissioning and site restoration phases. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the commencement , and retained for the duration, of each phase . 21) T he development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until full details of both hard and soft landscape works, including a dated implementation programme (inclusive of any phasing), have been submitted to , and approved in writing by , the l ocal p lanning a uthority . Hard and soft landscape works shall include the following: i) written specifications, including soil depths, cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 20 ii) schedules of plants noting species, planting sizes, root packaging and proposed numbers/densities iii) drainage proposals iv) hard surfacing for parking of emergency vehicles along the internal access road All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, approved implementation programme, British Standard BS 4428:1989 (Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations) and in general accordance with Leeds City Council website landscape guidance entitled ‘Landscape Planning and Development’. The landscaping works shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development. If, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, any tree or shrub (or any tree or shrub planted in replacement for it) is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective, another tree of the same size and species as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place within the first planting season follo wing the removal, uprooting, destruction or death of the original tree . 22) All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the implementation programme approved pursuant to condition 2 1 . On completion of those works and by no later than 12 months following the development being brought into use, a Verification Report shall be submitted to , and approved in writing by , the l ocal p lanning a uthority to demonstrate that the approved hard and soft landscaping works have been implemented. 23) No development shall commence until a Landscape and Biodiversity Net Gain Management Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by , the local planning authority and shall include details of the following: i) Description of features to be delivered and managed to include Baseline Metric calculations of Biodiversity Units with Condition assessments and UKHab mapping ii) Extent and location/area of proposed features and Biodiversity Units on scaled maps and plans using UKHab mapping, with Target Condition assessments and Metric calculations iii) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management iv) Aims and Objectives of management to include Target Biodiversity Units and Target Condition Criteria v) Appropriate management Actions for achieving Aims and Objectives vi) A dated Annual Work Programme (to cover the initial 5 year period) vii) Details of the specialist ecological management body/organisation responsible for implementation of the Plan viii) For each of the first 5 years of the Plan, a progress report sent to the l ocal p lanning a uthority, within 3 months of each year being completed, by an appropriately qualified ecological consultant reporting on progress of the Annual Work Programme and confirmation of required Actions for the next 12 month period ix) Confirmation that habitat monitoring will be carried out in years 1, 3, 5,10, 20 and 30 Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 21 x) The Plan shall set out how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented when necessary The Plan will be reviewed and updated every 5 years, and implemented for the lifetime of the development in accordance with the approved details. 24) Biodiversity Net Gain Habitat Monitoring Reports will be carried out in Years 1, 3, 5, 10, 20 and 30 as per the stated years in the Landscape and BNG Management Plan by an appropriately qualified ecological consultant and , within 3 months of each year being completed , shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority . The BNG Habitat Monitoring Reports will include the following: i) Confirmation of the number of Biodiversity Units present based on a survey at an appropriate time of year and how this compares to the minimum of 7.57 Habitat Units, 1.11 Hedgerow Units and 1.30 Watercourse Units on land identified in the Headline Results for On - site Post - Intervention of the submitted Statutory Biodiversity Metric (submitted to the l ocal p lanning a uthority on 08.10.2024) ii) Where the Target Condition is not yet met provide an assessment of time to Target Condition for each habitat and any changes to management that are required iii) How the monitoring is funded and the appointed specialist ecological body Where remedial measures or changes in management are required , these will be addressed in updates of the Landscape & Biodiversity Net Gain Management Plan and its Annual Work Programmes. 25) Prior to commencement of development , a Lighting Design Strategy for Bats shall be produced by an appropriately qualified ecological consultant and submitted to, and approved in writing by , the local planning authority . The strategy shall: i) Identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for roosting, commuting or foraging bats - using an appropriately scaled map to show where these areas are ii) Show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb commuting and foraging bats. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the approved strategy and shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with it. 26) Prior to the commencement of development, a Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority to detail the provision of pole mounted bat roosting and bird nesting features (for species such as House Sparrow and Swift) within the site. The agreed plan shall show the number, specification of the bird nesting and bat roosting features and where they will be located, together with a timetable for implementation and commitment to being installed under the instruction of an app ropriately qualified Bat consultant. All approved features shall be installed prior to first use of the BESS for electricity Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 22 storage. The bird nesting and bat roosting features shall be retained in the manner as approved thereafter. 27) Written confirmation of the approved bat roosting and bird nesting features shall be submitted to the local planning authority within 10 working days of the first use of the BESS for electricity storage . This shall include photographs of features in - situ and a written statement that all features have been installed as per the agreed specifications and locations. 28) The cumulative operational sound level from the development shall not exceed the following decibel levels when measured and/or calculated from the nearest point of the footway to 88 Park Lane and the nearest point of the footway to 24 Barnsdale Road: i) Between 0700 - 2300 LAeq, 1hr 38dB at 1.5m above ground level ii) Between 2300 - 0700 LAeq , 15mins 34dB; and 54dB in the 100hz 1/3 octave band at 4.0m above ground level. 29) A post - completion sound test shall be carried out to confirm compliance with operational noise levels stated in the approved Noise Impact Assessment Report ref. 50 - 622 - R1 - 8 and the results shall be submitted to the local planning authority within 3 months of the date electricity is first stored by the approved development. 30) No BESS unit shall be installed at the site until a revised and final Battery Safety Management Plan, Emergency Response Plan, Risk Management Plan and Fire Water Management Plan have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority . The Battery Safety Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the Outline Battery Safety Management Plan ref. OWC - 048882 - 001 - REP001 - B and include the following details: i) site prevailing wind direction and speed data ii) confirmation that both external and internal site roads are suitable for fire and rescue service’s emergency response vehicle iii) the proposed provision of water for firefighting and access including personnel access from Newton Lane and, if necessary, via Public Footpath Ledston No. 8 taken from Barnsdale Road iv) spacing of batteries and cabinets, including containment approach v) location, design and cubic volume of any water tank(s) vi) a firewater management plan to include provision for firewater run - off to be safely contained within the site, tested before release and removed from the site to be treated vii) a vegetation control plan. The Emergency Response Plan , Risk Management Plan and Fire Water Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the guidance produced by the National Fire Chief Council’s guidance entitled Grid Scale Battery Energy Storage Systems, or the latest version of the document publish ed thereafter. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/25/3376171 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 23 No BESS unit shall be brought onto the site until a Review Strategy to periodically review and update the approved Battery Safety Management Plan, Risk Management Plan, Emergency Response Plan and Fire Water Management Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority . The Review Scheme shall include details about a programme for periodic review, to include a timetable for the submission of any revised plans and/or documents for the written approval of the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The approved Review Scheme shall be implemented for the duration of the development. The development shall be implemented and operated in strict accordance with the latest approved Battery Safety Management Plan, Emergency Response Plan, Risk Management Plan and Fire Water Management Plan. 31) The methods for managing flood and surface waters at the site shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use and retained and maintained for the duration of the development in accordance with the approved Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment Report ref. GON.0070.0043. 32) No works shall commence until a Soil Management Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority . The plan shall include the quantities of topsoil and subsoils to be stripped from the site, a plan to show where such topsoil and subsoil will be stripped, the method and location of topsoil and subsoil storage on site, and the management and protection of the topsoil and subsoil storage areas for the duration of the development. The development shall be implemented and carri ed out in accordance with the approved Soil Management Plan. 33) C onstruction, decommissioning and site restoration works shall only take place between the hours of: i) 0800 and 1800 on Mondays – Fridays ii) 0900 and 1300 on Saturdays. END OF SCHEDULE⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
I have therefore omitted this requirement from the con d ition . 83. To enhance and protect biodiversity, conditions are required to secur e monitoring reports in respect of the implementation of the BNGMP , to secure bat roosting and bird nesting features and to require confirmation t hat such features have been provided, and to requir e the agreement of a lighting design strategy. However, I do not consider that it is necessary for the Council to approve t he required confirmation that the approved ba t and bird features have been installed and have omitted that requirement from the condition as worded in this decision 84. To protect the living conditions of nearby residents, I have imposed conditions that restrict operational sound levels and requi res testing to confirm compliance with such levels, and restricting hours of working during the construction, decommissioning and site restoration phases . Again , I do not consider that it is necessary for the Council to approve the required confirmation that the development complies with the specified operation al noise levels , and I have adjusted the wording of the condition accord ingly. 85. As discussed previously , Conclusion …
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3376143 (Horsham District Council) — 2026-05-22
📍 Horsham District Council LPA code: E07000227 PINS reference: 3376143 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Hearing held on 28 April 2026 Site visit made on 28 April 2026 by E Dade BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 2 M a y 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 Land to the east of Charlwood Drive, Henfield BN5 9FA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Croudace Homes against the decision of Horsham District Council. • The application Ref is DC/24/1932. • The development proposed is development comprising up to 191 dwellings with open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure (all matters reserved except for access). Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for d evelopment comprising up to 191 dwellings with open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure (all matters reserved except for access) at l and to the e ast of Charlwood Drive, Henfield BN5 9FA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DC/24/1932, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. For clarity , I have included the site’s postcode in the address details above . 3. The Decision Notice sets out four reasons for refusal. However, certain matters have materially changed since the Council’s determination of the application. 4. On 31st October 2025 Natural England withdrew its requirement for development in the Sussex North Water Supply Zone to demonstrate water neutrality. Consequently, the parties agree that the second reason for refusal would be capable of being resolved, subj ect to the satisfaction of the Appropriate Assessment (AA) process. The AA is set out in my reasoning, below. 5. The fourth reason for refusal concerns the absence of a mechanism to secure the provision of affordable housing and necessary local infrastructure , or financial obligations required to make the development acceptable. During the appeal , a completed deed pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended (s106 agreement) was submitted containing planning obligations which would come into effect on grant of planning permission. On 29 April 2026, details of the obligations were publis hed on the Council’s planning register , providing opportunity for public inspection in advance of my decision . 6. The parties do not dispute the planning obligations within the s106 agreement would resolve the fourth reason for refusal . T herefore , my consideration of this matter is limited to whether the planning obligations would comply with Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (CIL reg ulation s). Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 7. The third reason for refusal concerns the submitted baseline metric and Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) , which the Council concluded contained inconsistencies such that an accurate baseline had not been provided and the statutory Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) condition would not be ca pa ble of being discharged. Following the Council’s decision, the appellant has provided an updated HMMP and m etric which were subsequently reviewed by the Council’s Ecologist / BNG Officer . Based on this updated inf ormation, the Council considers t he site baseline is acceptable and the metric demonstrates the required 10% BNG w ould be achieved through a combination of on - site and off - site measure s. Since the matter of whether the proposal would meet the statutory information requirements is no longer in dispute , my consideration of BNG is limited to the suitability of the proposed planning obligations. Main Issue s 8. Having regard to the above, the main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, having regard to the local development strategy; • Whether the proposed development would make suitable provision for affordable housing and other infrastructure required to make the development acceptable; • T he effect of the proposed development on the integrity of European sites; and • Whether other material considerations outweigh any harm identified such as to justify the development. Reasons Whether in a suitable location 9. The site comprises an open , undeveloped parcel of agricultural land with mature tree belts and hedgerows to its boundaries. The site abuts He n field’s built area , with a modern housing estate to the immediate west at Charlwood Drive and a row of detached dwellings fronting onto Furners Lane to the south. O pen fields extend beyond the site to the east and north and therefore the site forms a part of a wider, rural landscape . The site lies outside the Built - up Area Boundary (BUAB) as defined by P olicy 1 of the Henfield Neighbourhood Plan 2021 (HNP) 1 and therefore i s within the countryside for planning purposes . 10. Policy 2 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 (HDPF) seeks to maintain the district’s unique rural character whilst ensuring that the needs of the community are met through sustainable growth and suitable access to services and local employment. It allows for growth in accordance with the identified settlement hierarchy and supports the sustainable development of settlements of an appropriate scale which retains the existing settlement pattern and enhanc es natural environmental resources, includi ng landscape character . 11. Henfield is a ‘ tier 2 settlement ’, as indicated by the development hierarchy at HDPF Policy 3. These s ettlements offer a good range of services and facilities, strong community networks , local employment provision, and reasonable public 1 p23, Policy Map 1a - Henfield Built - up Area Boundary and Sites , Henfield Neighbourhood Plan 2021 Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 transport services. The site is in a n accessible location, close to High Street services, the primary school, and bus stops . 12. However, c riterion P1.2 of HNP Policy 1 supports development proposals outside of the BUAB only where it conform s with relevant national policies and H DPF policies for development in the countryside. HDPF Policy 26 seeks to protect the countryside against inappropriate development by limiting development outside BUABs to types with an essential need for a countryside location, such as to support agriculture, forestry, mineral extraction, waste disposal, recreation, and the to enable the sustainable developm ent of rural areas. It is not demonstrated that the proposed development has an essential need for a countryside location. 13. HDPF Policy 4 also enables development outside BUABs to support the growth of settlements to meet identified development needs . It is agreed by the main parties that t he level of expansion is appropriate to the scale and function of the settlement; t he proposal would meet local housing needs; t he impact of the development individually or cumulatively would not prejudice comprehensive long - term development; and t he development would be contained within an existing defensible boundary and landscape character features would be maintained and enhanced 2 . Therefore, the proposal would satisfy criteria 2 to 5 of Policy 4. However, whilst the site adjoins the existing settlement edge, it is not allocated by the development plan . For this reason, the proposal fails to comply with criterion 1 and thus would conflict with HDPF Policy 4. 14. Whilst it did not consider the scale of impacts to be of sufficient magnitude to justify a reason for refusal, the Council nonetheless identified localised, residual medium adverse effects to medium/minor adverse effects on landscape and visual receptors . In addition, t he Agricultural Land Classification report identifies 72.4% of the site as ‘best and most versatile agricultural land’. Therefore, the adverse effect of siting the development in th e proposed location would be the modest loss of countryside r esource s which would not be justified within the parameters of the policies of the development plan. 15. As set out above, the policies of the development plan do not positively favour development in the proposed location. Therefore, having regard to the local development strategy , namely HDPF Policies 2, 4 and 26, and HNP Policy 1, the proposed development would not be in a suitable location. Provision of affordable housing and infrastructure 16. Schedule s 2 and 3 of the s106 agreement contain s planning obligations relating to the provision of affordable housing , including the submission of an affordable housing scheme . The planning obligations would secure the provision of on - site affordable housing of an agreed tenure mix to meet an identified housing need and would include provision for the nomination of the affordable rented units and measures to ensure the appropriate disposal of the units. In the event the appellant is unable to reach agreemen t with an affordable housing provider, the obligations place a duty on the Council to assist in securing a provider and/or agree a change to the mix of affordable housing types. Such provisions are necessary to secure the provision and delivery of affordable housing in accordance with HDPF Policy 16, and guidance contained within the Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document. 2 Paragraph 7.12 of Statement of Common Ground, April 2026 Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 17. For developments of the scale and type proposed, HDPF Policy 16 requires 35% of dwellings be affordable housing. Since this requirement applies to a proportion of the proposed units, it is directly related to the development. However, t he obligation would secure affordable housing at a rate of 45% thereby exceeding the policy requirement. This higher rate of provision would contribute toward an identified unmet need for affordable housing units and therefore is justified in planning terms. Moreover, the appellant has not suggested that the required level of affordable housing cannot be viably delivered by the development, therefore the obligation would be fairly and reasonably related to the development in scale . 18. Schedule 4 of the s106 agreement concerns the provision and management of open space and requires submission of details of the provision of o pen s pace, Local Area of Play and/or Local Equipped Area of Play , and details of their s pecifications and ma nagement . The planning obligation s also require the establishment of a management company and a financial contribution be paid to the parish council for future maintenance in the event open spaces are transferred to its ownership. 19. O pen spaces enhance amenity areas and support the recreation needs of future residents of the development and must be appropriately maintained throughout the lifetime of the development. Therefore, the provision and long - term management and maintenance of open spaces over the lifetime of the developmen t , is required to meet the requirements of HDPF Policy 32 , which seeks to secure a framework of high - quality open spaces which meets the identified needs of the community, and is thus necessary to make the dev elopment acceptable in planning terms. 20. Whilst t he extent of open space provision is not defined at this time , it would be agreed through the appro val of the open space specification and consideration of the layout of the development at the reserved matter s stage. Therefore, I am satisfied the consideration of open space as a reserved matter would ensure this provision is directly and reasonably related in scale and ki n d . 21. Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021) mandates that , unless exempt, every development must achieve at least a 10% uplift in biodiversity value . E very planning permission is deemed to be granted subject to the condition that development must not be begun unless a Biodiversity Gain Plan has been submitted and approve d . 22. Schedule 5 of the s 106 agreement includes p lanning o bligation s to ensure the deliver y of BNG through the submission of a Biodiversity Gain Plan and HMM P . The obligations would ensure the Habitat Creation and Enhancement Works set out in the HMMP are retained and maintained and i ncludes a financial contribution for long - term monitoring of the BNG works , with procedures for enforc ement against any identified breach of the HMMP. Since the monitor ing and manage ment of BNG for a 30 - year period is mandated by legislation , the obligations are necessary to make the development acceptable . 23. The proposal includes off site highways works which comprise parking improvements to a layby and pedestrian crossings at identified locations. These works are secured by the p lanning o bligation s set out schedule 6 of the s106 agreement. These improvements are required to mitigate the impact s of the proposal on the local road network to maintain highway safety, and to ensure the Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 develop ment achieves an integrated community connected by a sustainable transport system and manages anticipated growth in demand for travel as required by HDPF Policy 40 . 24. The planning obligations at schedule 6 of the s106 agreement secure the submission of a Travel Plan, the appointment of a Travel Plan co - ordinator and a contribution for a Travel Plan Monitoring fee. As set out in the Planning Policy Guidance, “ Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements are all ways of assessing and mitigating the negative transport impacts of development in order to promote sustainable development. They are required for all developments which generate significant amounts of movemen ts ” 3 . For a scheme of th is size, a travel plan is a statutory requirement. Securing the provision of a travel plan through a planning obligation ensures it operates in tandem with the contribution for the ongoing monitoring of the data by the County Council . Therefore, I am satisfied the planning obligations relat ing to the Travel Plan constitute a reason for granting planning permission and meet the tests of the CIL regulations. 25. Signatories of the s106 agreement include the landowners, appellant, the District Council, and the County Council, and therefore the obligations would be binding on all relevant parties and the s106 agreement would be effective and enforceable in securing the provision of necessary affordable housing and infrastructure. The parties consider the planning obligations would comply with paragraph 122 of the CIL regulations 4 . I have no compelling evidence to the contrary and , as discussed above , I am satisfied the planning obligations would be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and are otherwise compliant with the CIL regulations. In addition, the Council operates a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to fund strategic infrastructure, and th is levy would apply to the proposed development . Consequently , the propos al demonstrates the development would make suitable provision for affordable housing and other infrastructure. 26. The proposal therefore co mplies with HDPF Policies 16, 31 and 39 which together require development provide a mix of housing tenures to meet the needs of the district’s communities, contribute to the enhancement of existing biodiversity , and secure new or improved infrastructure in accordance with required standards. Integrity of European sites 27. The site is within the Sussex North Water Supply Zone and ( SN WSZ) and therefore has a functional relationship with the Arun Valley Special Area of Conservation (S AC), Special Protection Area (SPA), and Ramsar site , which are European site s afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as amended (the Habitat Regulations) . 28. The qualifying features of the SPA and SAC are its a ssemblage of waterfowl including Bewick’s swan , shoveler, teal, wigeon, and populations of l ittle whirlpool ramshorn snail . The qualifying features of the R amsar site include its waterfowl assemblage and seven threatened wetland invertebrate species , including endangered p seudamnicola confusa. The site also supports four nationally rare and four nationally scarce plant species . T he ditches intersecting the site have a particularly diverse and rich flora. T he site supports a ll five British duckweed 3 Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 42 - 002 - 20140306 4 Paragraph 1.7 of s106 agreement Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 species , all five water - cress species, all three British water milfoils species, six British water dropwort species , and two - thirds of British pondweed s. 29. The c onservation objectives for the SAC and SPA are to e nsure the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate and ensure the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive by maintaining or restoring the extent and distribution, structure and function, and habitats of the qualifying features and the population and distribution of qualifying features within the site. 30. At time of the Counc il’s decision, Natural England’s substantive advice (Position Statement Interim Approach, September 2021) indicated that it cannot be concluded with certainty that existing abstraction within the SN WSZ does not hav e an impact on the Arun Valley sites, requiring development within this zone not add to this impact . Therefore, development which would increase demand for water resources within the SN WSZ was considered to result in likely significant effect s on the Arun Valley SAC/SPA/Ramsar site either alone or in combination with other developments in the SN WSZ . However, on 31 October 2025, Natural England formally withdrew the September 2021 Position Statement . 31. The Withdrawal Statement confirms a package of measures have been agreed between Natural England, the Environment Agency, and Southern Water . Notably, t he measures include a voluntary reduction by Southern Water to their Hardham abstraction licence to cap abstraction to the level which reflects actual recent historical abstraction and removes additional headroom ensuring that new development will not add to existing pressures to water levels on the s ites . This decouples abstraction from new development preventing additional pressure on Arun Valley water resources . 32. Therefore, whilst the additional population associated with the proposed development would increase demand for water use in the SNWSZ , this would not result in adverse impacts associated with abstraction . Consequently , th rough its Withdrawal Statement , Natural England advise the proposed development would not have likely significant effects on the integrity of the Arun Valley sites, either alone or in - combination with other development. 33. However, i n its letter , dated 10 November 2025, Natural England acknowledges the Council ’s view that further information is required before it can be satisfied that the agreed package of measures can be sufficiently secured and proven to be effective in practice. 34. Prior to Natural England withdrawing their September 2021 Position Statement, affected local authorities within the SNWSZ were jointly producing a water offsetting scheme , the Sussex North Water Certification Scheme (“SNWCS”) , to utilise demand capacity generated by Southern Water efficiency savings and other water saving projects . The SNWCS was designed to use mains water capacity generated by Southern Water from improved leakage reduction, and household and non - household demand reductio n . This capacity was some 3.24 megalitres per day, sufficient to ensure mains water to 7,066 new dwellings. Natural England has previously reviewed and agreed the Southern Water efficiency savings figures . 35. To ensure development makes efficient use of water, HDPF Policy 37 requires water consumption be limited to 110 litres per person per day (l/p/d). Details of fixtures and fittings, set out in Technical Note 1: Water Neutrality Statement Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 November 2024 demonstrates total daily water usage would meet the 110l/p/d target. This provides certainty regarding the development’s total water usage. 36. The SNWCS has b een paused following Natural England ’s withdrawal of its September 2021 Position Statement. However, the additional capacity created remains available . The C ouncil monitors new development granted planning permission and additional water consumption since the withdrawal of the Position Statement. T he water usage of the proposed development w ould be accommodated within the additional capacity generated by Southern Water’s efficiency measures . 37. Consequently , i rrespective of mitigation package discussed above , the identified additional available mains water capacity would ensure that the proposed development would not lead to an increase in water abstraction within the SNWSZ. 38. Natural England’s letter confirms it supports the Council’s approach of monitoring planning permissions granted within the S N WSZ to ensure the available capacity referred to is not exceeded . In this instance, it is not necessary to consult Natural England whos e position and advice in respect of matters of water scar city within the SNWSZ are clearly set out in its Withdrawal Statement 31 October 2025 and its letter to Horsham District Council, 10 November 2025. 39. As set out above, with the imposition of a planning condition to secure water efficiency within the development, and through utilising mains water capacity generated fr o m efficiency savings , the proposal demonstrates it would not increase water abstraction with the SNWSZ . Moreover, the package of measures identified in Natural England’s Withdrawal Statement prevent s development pressure on Arun Valley water resources . Therefore, there is certainty the proposal would not have likely significant effects on th e Arun Valley SPA, SAC, Ramsar , and thus would not harm the integrity of th ese European sites . 40. T he proposal would satisfy the Habitat Regulations which require permission only be granted after having ascertained that it will not affect the integrity of European sites and would meet the duties under s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority habitats & species) . The proposal would therefore comply with HDPF Policy 31 which requires d evelopment contribute to the enhancement of existing biodiversity , affords p articular consideration will be given to the hierarchy of sites and habitats , and requires appropriate m itigation and compensation measures b e provi ded. Other considerations 41. The proposal would contribute 191 dwellings to the area’s housing stock. It is agreed by the main parties that the delivery of the proposed market housing should be afforded at least very significant weight. 42. The provision of a ffordable housing provision would exceed the minimum policy requirement and would achieve a rate of 45%. T he main parties agree that the affordable housing provision should attract at least very significant weight. 43. The main parties also agree that the p rovision of on - site open space and play facilities carries at least moderate weight. 44. In addition, there would be mode rate soci al and economic benefits through increased footfall for existing local services and facilities from future occupants of the development , direct provision and financial contributions toward local Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 infrastructure improvements secured through planning obligations and CIL , and c reation of jobs and training opportunities during the construction phase . Furthermore, the re would be a mode rate uplift in biodiversity value through BNG. Other Matters 45. The Parameter s Plan 5 illustrates broad principles of the potential site layout . Th e scheme would achieve a density of 35 dwellings per hectare which is comparable to the scale of the existing residential development to the west. Therefore, the quantum of development proposed would be accommodated within the site with a layout and density that reflects the character of the surrounding area . 46. In addition, the P arameters P lan suggests areas of residential development would be set back from the boundaries. The extent of separation between existing dwellings and the proposed development would be sufficient to avoid loss of privacy, light, and outlook, or exposure to noise. However, to avoid disturbance to occupants during constru ction , and to maintain the quality of the local environment including air quality , a Construction Environment Management Plan would be secured through a planning condition. 47. Some local residents use the site for recreational walks along its edge. The site is in private ownership, and the proposal would not affect the public right of way network or availability of public open space, since no such routes or designations apply to the site. 48. Many respondents expressed concern the proposal would adversely affect h ighway safety for pedestrians and road users through increase d traffic and congestion on connecting estate roads and H igh S treet , which experience on - street parking, and visibility and capacity constraints . Following the development, a ll junctions assessed within the Transport Assessment December 2024 (TA) are expected to operate comfortability within capacity and with minimal queuing, across all scenarios. In addition, the TA’s highway link impact assessment establish es the level of development traffic that would route to or through the High Street as a proportion of the background traffic and show s that peak hour development traffic would be within typical daily variation s in background traffic . The TA notes that on - street parking occurs in various locations between the junctions with London Road and Charlwood Drive but found t his helps to ensure vehicle speeds remain low along this stretch of road and approaching the site. Consequently, t he TA concludes the proposed development would have a negligible impact on the local highway network . 49. In addition, concerns were raised regarding the proximity of the proposed junction to the existing access at no 6 Charlwood Drive . During the Council’s determination t he junction design was revised, i ncluding the geometry of the radius on the western side . I n its response d ated 01 May 2025, West Sussex County Council , the local highway authority, advises the site access layout would be acceptabl e. 50. As discussed above, a travel plan and highway works would be secured by the s106 agreement . This would provide pedestrian connectivity for all users with provision of dropped crossing points and tactile paving, and the proposed emergency access would also serve as a route for pedestrians and cyclists. 5 Drawing no. PL - 03 Rev D Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 51. I have had regard to the advice of the local highway authority, which confirms it is satisfied the development proposals accord with relevant policy requirements set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) , and that the proposal would not result in any severe or otherwise unacceptable safety impacts , and subject to conditions and obligations raises no objection to the scheme. Furthermore, a condition to secure demolition and construction details would ensure the movements of construction veh icles would not harm highway safety. 52. The site is within Flood Zone 1 , i.e. at lowest risk of flooding, and Environment Agency mapping indicates the site is not subject to surface water flood risk . Conditions would ensure the development is constructed in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment and su stainable drainage system schem e. I have had regard to the advice of West Sussex County Council, the lead local flood authority, which confirms that, subject to conditions, it has no objection to the proposal . It is th erefore demonstrated the p ro posal would not increase flood risk on or off site. 53. Concerns were also raised regarding the cumulative effects of the proposed development on other infrastructure including the capacity of electricity and sewerage networks and the availability of local services and employment opportunities . T here is no substantive evidence before me that there would be harm in respect of these matters, and no objection has been raised by the Council or statutory consultees. Therefore, none of the concerns raised provide a compelling reason why planning permiss ion should not be granted. T he development would contribute toward the provision of strategic infrastructure such as policing and education, through its payment of CIL . 54. T he site comprises arable land bounded by hedgerows, with small areas of modified grassland and forbs. The Ecological Appraisal November 2024 indicates the hedgerows are the only on - site habitat of ecological importance. Whilst s mall sections of hedgerow w ould be remo ved to facilitate access , this would be compensated by new, native species - rich hedgerow planting , and th e loss of remaining habitat would be of negligible significance. 55. C ommon lizard and slow worm were recorded on site, and the Ecological Appraisal indicates the site provides some roosting, foraging and commuting opportunities for bats and nesting birds. However, it concludes the site generally offers limited opportunities for protected species. In addition, the Dormouse Technical Note 02 provides further assessment of the site’s suitability for the likely presence of hazel dormouse and no evidence attributable to dormouse was recorded . The delivery of proposed mitigation and compensatory measures would be secured through planning condition s, including the requirement for a Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy and w ildlife - f riendly l ighting s trategy, to minimise the risk of harm to any protected species present and maintain or enhance the conservation status of local populations . 56. The site is within an amber impact risk zone for great crested newts, and suitable habitat is present in the surrounding landscape. T h e Ecologica l A ppraisal found that great crested newts are likely absent from the site due to the suboptimal habitat and negative eDNA results . However, great crested newts may migrate across arable land and m ay utilise cracks and crevices for rest and shelter . Consequently, the development must follow reasonable avoidance measures to minimise the risk to great crested newts s ecured by a condition requiring a Precautionary Working Methods Statement . Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 57. The Council’s consultant ecologist advises there is sufficient ecological information available to support the application. Subject to conditions, the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on protected species and their habitats. 58. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended (LBCA Act) requires I have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed building , their setting s and any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess . The Built Heritage Statement November 2024 notes the site lies 219m north of Grade II listed building, Backsettown 6 , and the Design & Access Statement identifies a further six listed buildings to the southwest of the site at London Road and Furners Mead. 59. Backsettown dates from the 16 th - century or earlier and is an L - shaped , timber - framed building with red brick infilling. The south - east wing is the older portion which contained the hall and t he front of the west wing and south - east wing have been refaced with red brick, grey headers and red mathematical tiles. The Built Heritage Statement indicates the s ite make s only a very low contribution to the significance of the Backsettown as an e ssentially unappreciable element of its agricultural landscape context. 60. The south wing of Grade II* listed Wantley Manor, London Road 7 contain s a medieval hall. The east wing was later converted into outhouses, and the west wing is now hidden by a n 18 th century addition . The timber frami ng is exposed in some places but has mostly been refaced with red brick or tiles on a cemented or brick base. The roof was originally of Horsham slabs but has mostly been refaced with tiles, one section being pantiles. It comprises t wo storeys , with t hree windows to each wing. In the 18 th century, the west wing was doubled by a portion facing the road. This has two storeys and three windows and is faced with red mathematical tiles , m odillion eaves cornice , and h ipped Horsham slab roof. 61. Grade II listed Traddles, 5, London Road 8 dates from the 18 th century o r earlier. It has t wo storeys faced with tiles , a t iled roof , c asement windows , and projecting s hop front . Grade II listed, 6 London Road 9 is an e arly - 19 th century, t wo - storey building with painted brick, o verhanging eaves , s late roof. It has t wo small bays on ground floor and a contemporary shop windo w with glazing bars. Grade II listed Gull Cottage, 8 & 9, London Road 10 dates from the 17 th century or earlier , but re - fronted in the 18 th century . It has t wo storeys , with n o 8 faced with painted bri ck at ground floor and tile - hung above. No 9 is faced with grey headers with red brick dressings, quoins, modillion stringcourse and eaves cornice. 62. Grade II listed Redbarn, London Road 11 is a 17 th - century or earlier , two - storey, timber - framed building with some timbering exposed at the back , with a t iled roof , c asement windows , and d oorways with pediment - shaped hoods over. Grade II listed nos 1 - 8 Eastern Terrace, Furners Mead 12 is an e arly - 19 th century, two - storey terrace row , with a s late roof , h orizontal sliding sash windows , and s late - hung elevations which are unusual in the local area . The significance of these buildings is derived from their architectural and historic interest. 6 List entry no. 1027392 7 List entry no. 1027376 8 List entry no. 1286429 9 List entry no. 1353985 10 List entry no. 1027375 11 List entry no. 1353986 12 List entry no. 1286615 Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 63. In addition, section 72(1) of the LBCA Act requires that, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, I pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. Henfield Conservation Area (CA) lies to the southwest of the site. T he site is outside the CA and does not contribute to how it is experienced or understood . 64. E xisting residential development between the site and the CA and listed buildings provides physical and visual separation , and there is n o known historical or functional relationship between the s ite and the listed buildings or any built heritage asset within the CA . Therefore, the development would have a neutral effect upon, and thus would preserve the listed buildings, their settings, and the character and appearance of the CA. I have also had regard to the advice of the Council’s Conservation Team who conclude the development is unlikely to have a significant impact on the setting of these assets. For these reasons , I am satisf ied the proposal would not harm heritage assets and would comply with the requirements of the LBCA Act . 65. I have no substantive reason to consider the community engagement carried out in respect of the application was anything other than compliant with the regulation s . Planning Balance 66. Since the HDPF is more than five years old, paragraph 78 of the Framework requires the Council identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their local housing need , rather than against the target set by the HDPF . In addition, as t he latest available Housing Delivery Test (HDT) measurement 13 indicates past delivery in the Council’s area was substantially below the housing requiremen t , paragraph 79 of the Framework requires a 20% buffer be applied to the identified supply . Set against the total housing requirement, the Council ’s Authority Monitoring Report December 2025 demonstrate s a 1.7 years’ supply of housing land . Therefore, w ith in the Council’s area there is a significant shortfall in the supply of housing . 67. In this circumstance, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged, whereby planning permission should be granted unless (i) policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusing the development , and (ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable lo cations, making effective use of land, securing well - designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination. 68. I have found the proposal would not have likely significant effects on the integrity of European sites either alone or in combination with similar development. Consequently, t he proposal would not conflict with the Framework’s policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance , and therefore Framework paragraph 11(d)(i) does not provide a strong reason for refusing the development. This absence of harm is a neutral factor in the planning balance. 13 Housing Delivery Test 2023, published 12 December 2024 Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 69. Paragraph 232 of the Framework requires due weight be given to existing policies, according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). As set out above, I have found the proposal would conflict with HDPF Policies 2, 4 and 26, and HNP Policy 1 . 70. As discussed, the proposal would result in a loss of countryside commensurate in scale with the area of the site , with localised residual medium to medium/minor landscape and visual impacts and a loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. Paragraph 187 of the Framework recognises the intrinsic c haracter and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem service s, including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land . Therefor e, there is some synergy between the development plan policies and paragraph 187 of the Framework through the general protection s applied to the countryside. 71. However, t he Council’s Shaping Development in Horsham District Planning Advice Note 2025 ( SDPAN ) recognises the HDPF’s housing target can no longer be used for calculating housing land supply and expects development proposals will come forward in locations not supported by the development plan. Whilst t he SDPAN does not reduce the statutory weight of the development pla n , it sets out how the Council will support development to meet identified needs and other objectives . Therefore, there would be an expectation that the SDPAN would be applied in decision - making and the SDPAN forms a material consideration in my decision . 72. P aragraph 5.12 of the SDPAN sets out criteria which development proposals are expected to meet. These broadly reflect criteria 1 to 5 of HDPF Policy 4 but c rucially , omit s the requirement for the site to be allocated by the development plan . Concerns were raised that the proposal would set a precedent for development in unplanned locations. However, a function of the SPAN is to enable development to come forward on unallocated land outside BUABs where opportunities for development would normally be restricted by HDPF Policy 26. The main parties agree the appeal scheme is consistent with each of the requirements of paragraph 5.12 , and thus compliant with this guidance 14 . 73. T herefore, t aking account the degree of consistency with the Framework and having regard to the SDPAN, the conflict between the appeal proposal and HDPF Policies 2, 4 and 26 carries only modest weight against the proposal . However, the conflict with HDPF Policy 26 would, by extension , result in conflict with a policy contained within a neighbourhood plan, HNP Policy 1. 74. The Framework states the planning system should be genuinely plan - led 15 and t he Written Ministerial Statement of 27 Feb 2025 16 asserts that “the plan - led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system”. T hrough neighbourhood planning , the planning system seeks to provide communities the power to develop a shared vision for their area 17 . Representations from the Council, Parish Council, and residents express a perception that Henfield has contributed its share of the area’s development needs and convey significant concern s that the proposed development would undermine the HNP and wider 14 Paragraph 7.14, Statement of Common Ground April 2026 15 Paragraph 15 , National Planning Policy Framework 16 Local Plan Making and Guidance , Volume 762: debated on Thursday 27 February 2025 17 Paragraph 30, National Planning Policy Framework Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 plan - led system and material ly weaken the legitimacy of local and neighbourhood - level plan - making. Whilst this effect is somewhat abstract, it nonetheless represents a harmful consequence of the propos ed development . 75. T he Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision - making but recognises the application of the presumption has implications for the way communities engage in neighbourhood planning 18 . Consequently, p aragraph 14 advises that : “I n situations where the presumption at [Framework] paragraph 11d applies to applications involving the provision of housing, the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, provided the following apply: a) the neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan five years or less before the date on which the decision is made; and b) the neighbourhood plan contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement (see [Framework] paragraphs 69 - 70). ” 76. The HNP was made by the Council on 23 June 2021 and is approaching its fifth anniversary . S ince the HNP became part of the development plan less than five y ears from the date of my decision , the test at Framework paragraph 14(a) is met. 77. The HNP identifies a housing requirement figure o f 270 dwellings for the neighbourhood area. HNP Policy 2 provides four site allocations, of which the Council has resolved to grant planning permission for 264 dwellings and is assessing an application for 9 dwellings. In addition, a further 23 dwellings have been consented on windfall sites during the plan period. The HNP policies and allocations has, to date, made provision for 283 dwellings, thereby exceeding the HNP’s requirement. Therefore, the test at F ramework paragraph 14(b) is met. 78. However, a s concluded by the Inspector in an appeal decision for 70 dwellings in Melksham, Wiltshire 19 , Framework paragraph 14 is not absolute. It does not place a firm bar against development going ahead even if counter to a n eighbourhood p lan that meets the paragraph 14 tests . Rather, paragraph 14 requires the decision - maker exercise judgement as to whether conflict with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits . 79. In the Melksham case, t he Inspector concluded that whilst the neighbourhood plan contained policies and allocations, the validity of the housing requirement figure could not be relied upon. This tempered the weight the Inspector afforded to the housing requirement 20 . Furthermore, in an appeal decision for 250 dwellings in Faversham, Kent 21 , the Inspector conclude d that whilst the neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan within the past five years, it contains policies and allocations that would meet a housing requirement that do es not accurately reflect up - to - date housing need. In this circumstance, the Inspector concluded the adverse impacts of the conflicts with the neighbourhood plan do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits 22 . 18 Paragraphs 12 & 13, National Planning Policy Framework 19 Appeal Ref: APP/Y3940/W/25/3374421 , Land off Woodrow Road, Melksham, Wiltshire, SN12 7AY 20 Paragraph 42 of appeal decision APP/Y3940/W/25/3374421 21 Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/W/24/3350524, Land at Ham Road, Faversham, Kent ME13 7TX 22 Paragraph 103 of appeal decision APP/V2255/W/24/3350524, Land at Ham Road, Faversham, Kent ME13 7TX Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 80. P aragraph 69 of the Framework require s strategic policies set out a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas which reflects the overall strategy for the pattern and scale of development. HDPF Policy 15 makes provision for the development of at least 16,000 dwellings or an average of 800 dwellings per annum over the period 2011 - 2031. Of this total , Policy 15 require s at least 1,500 dwellings be allocated through neighbourhood planning. 81. The Housing Needs Assessment , Aecom 2017 (HNA) identifies five data sources which inform ed the housing requirement. However, the HNA explains that explicit guidance was received from the Council that the housing target for the neighbourhood area should be taken from the HDPF’s 1,500 dwelling requirement for neighbourhood plans 23 . T o estimate the housing requirement , the HNA took an average of its data source s but, t o ensure consistency with the HDPF’s dwelling target for neighbourhood plans, a higher figure derived from the district minimum requirement was excluded and a nil rate predicated on an assumption that project ed growth for the area ha d been met was retained. This suppressed the housing requirement below other objective data sources. 82. The HNP Examiner’s R eport 2020 highlights th e relationship between the HNA’s housing requirement and HDPF. At paragraph 6.30, the examiner notes the approach set out in the HNA was recommended by the Council to identify thei r proportion of the wider 1,500 dwelling target for neighbourhood planning , and at 6.34, explains advice received from the Council that the HNP’s housing requirement represents an appropriate, sustainable and important proportion of the 1 ,500 - dwelling figure . A t paragraph 6.35, the examiner concluded the HNP’s housing requirement reflects the most recently available planning strate gy of the Council. Consequently, th e HNP’s housing requirement is i ntrinsically linked to , and indivisible from the HDPF’s development strategy . 83. As set out in the Statement of Comon Ground ( SoCG ) , the Council’s annual housing need has significant ly increase d from the figure set out by HDPF Policy 15 , and this target can no longer be relied upon . Within the context of this significant uplift, I cannot consider the HNP’s housing requirement to remain a credible indicator of current housing need . 84. Acknowledging the age of the HNP, Henfield Parish Council confirmed it is currently undertaking a review of the HNP. However, it has not approached the District Council to update its housing requirement. The HNP review is at an early stage of preparation, and I have no certainty it will address the shortfall in housing. 85. The appeal site was assessed during the Local Plan review but was not progressed as a preferred allocation. The emerging Local Plan was submitted in July 2024 and e xamination commenced in December 2024 but was subsequently cancelled following the Inspectors conclusions that the Council had failed to satisfactorily comply with the duty to co - operate. Following the w ithdrawal of Natural England’s September 2021 Position Statement , examination of the emerging Local Plan was resume d , with h earing sessions held in April 2026 and scheduled for late 2026 . T he Inspector’s letter suggests consideration of additional sites may be required and the Council has provided a provisional work programme which indicates previously assessed sites would be revisited . However, given the 23 Paragraph 27 of Housing Needs Assessment , Aecom 2017 Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 emerging Local Plan’s early stage of preparation , the Council accepts its draft policies carry only limited weight. 86. Until recently, d elivery of new development in the SNWSZ has been constrained . Whilst th e requirement to demonstrate water neutrality no longer applies, I have not been provided evidence to suggest th is will lead to a significant improvement in the housi ng land supply position in the short term . 87. In summary, t he HNP is less than five years old and contains policies and allocations to meet its housing requirement. However, significant material changes in circumstances since the HNP was made suggest its identified housing requirement is no longer reliable . Furthermore , the shortfall in housing land supply across the Council’s area is not likely to be remedied in the short term , and I anticipate will persist until the emerging Local Plan reaches adoption. T herefore , the weight to be afforded to the proposal’s conflict with HNP Policy 1 is diminished. 88. Set against th ese policy conflicts , within the context of a significant shortfall in the supply of housing and the g overnment’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes 24 , the provision of 191 dwellings attracts very significant weight in favour of the proposal. The development would provide a mix of affordable housing with the rate of provision exceed ing the minimum policy requirement , thus contributing positively to the Framework’s key policy at paragraph 66 and attract ing very significant weight in the scheme’s favour. In addition, I attach moderate weight to the biodiversity net gain and social and economic benefits identified at ‘other considerations’ . T he benefits of the scheme are therefore of a very high order. 89. In conclusion, t he adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the HNP is a matter of considerable weight and importance . However, in this circumstance, the adverse impacts of allowing development that conflicts with the local development strategy , including the provisions of the HNP, would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply , and the appeal should be allowed . Conditions 90. The SoCG includes a list of suggested conditions which I have considered against the Framework’s tests. The SoCG confirms the appellant’s agreement to all pre - commencement conditions. 91. In the interest of certainty, I have included a condition which specifies the approved plans. This includes plans and drawings relating to the proposed access. Since I have had regard to it in my decision, I have also included a condition which requires the development broadly accord with the principles of the Parameters Plan which illustrates how the development could be accommodated within the site in a manner which satisfies HDPF Policies 32 and 33. I have included condition requiring the protection of i mportant trees and hedgerows on the site in accordance with HDPF Policy 33 . 92. Since I am granting outline planning permission, I have included condition s requiring that details of the reserved matters are submitted for approval and specifying the time period s by which the reserved matters application must be 24 Paragraph 61, National Planning Policy Framework Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 submitted and development must commence . The reserved matters are appearance , landscaping , layout , and scale . 93. To ensure the development does not result in flooding both on and off site and that all s urface w ater d rainage features are adequately protected in accordance with HDPF Policy 42 , I have included condition s requiring the development be constructed in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment and requiring submission of a construction phase surface water management plan , sustainable drainage system scheme for the dispos al of surface water , details of the maintenance and management of the sustainable drainage scheme , and a verification report . 94. To conserve protected and p riority species during both construction and operational phases of the development and enable the duties under the Conservation of Habitats Regulations and Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority Habitats & Species) to be discharged , I have attached condition s requiring submission of a lighting design strategy to prevent disturbance to protected bat species , Biodiversity Construction and Environmental Management Plan , Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy ; and r equiring all mitigation measures and works be carried out in accordance with the Ecological Appraisal, Dormouse Technical Note, and Non - Licensed Precautionary Method Statement to safeguard Great Crested Newts and their habitats . 95. To maintain the amenity of nearby occupiers and highway safety during construction in accordance with HDPF Policies 33 and 40 , I have included a condition requiring submission of demolition and construction details. To safeguard the amenities of adjacent occupiers in accordance with HDPF Policy 33, I have attached a condition specify the days and times when construction may take place. In accordance with fire and safety regulations and HDPF Policy 33 , I have attached a condition requiring provision of fire hydrants or stored water supply. 96. To mitigate the impact of the construction and operational phases of the development on air quality, and to sustain compliance with and contribute towards national objectives for pollutants, as required by HDPF Policies 24 and 41, I have included a conditi on requiring the development be carried out in accordance with a mitigation strategy. To avoid harm to humans, controlled waters or the wider environment and ensure any pollution is dealt with in accordance with HDPF Policies 24 and 33, I have included a c ondition requiring a preliminary risk assessment be carried out and specifying further steps to be taken in the event contamination or pollution is discovered. For the same reasons, I have included a condition requiring a remediation scheme be implemented prior to occupation. 97. Since t he site is of archaeological significance , and to satisfy the requirements of HDPF Policy 34, I have included a condition requiring development be carried out in accordance an agreed programme of archaeological works. 98. To ensure the development meets the communication needs of future occupiers , in accordance with HDPF Policy 37 , I have included a condition requiring provision of superfast and full - fibre broadband connectivity. 99. In the interests of visual amenity and nature conservation in accordance with HDPF Policy 33 , I have included a condition requiring the development be carried in accordance with an agreed landscape management and maintenance plan . Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 100. To ensure the development provides safe and suitable access to/from the public highway, I have included a condition requiring the vehicular access and associated works are constructed prior to occupation of the development , and details of the emergency, pedestrian, and cyclist link between the development and Kingsley Square are submitted . 101. T o avoid adverse impact s on the Arun Valley SAC , SPA and Ramsar sites in accordance with Policy 31 and Habitats regulations , I have included a condition requiring the development comply with the optional technical standard to limit water use , as required by HDPF Policy 37 . Conclusion 102. For the reasons set out above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole . However, there are other material considerations which justify a decision othe r than in accordance with the development plan . I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed. E Dade INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 Schedule of Conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan s: Location Plan PL - 01 Rev D 28.06.2024 ; Fire Tender Swept Path Analyses 106205 - PEF - XX - XX - D - H - 000005 Rev P01 18.11.2024 ; Refuse Vehicle Swept Path Analyses 106205 - PEF - XX - XX - D - H - 000006 REV P03 14.02.2025 ; Proposed Primary and Emergency (Inset) Site Access Arrangements 106205 - PEF - XX - XX - D - H - 000004 REV P03 14.02.2025 ; and Proposed Primary Site Access Arrangement 106205 - PEF - XX - XX - D - H - 000002 Rev P03 27.02.25 . 2. The detailed design of the development proposed through Reserved Matters applications pursuant to this outline planning permission shall have regard to, and broadly accord with, the principles set out within the Parameter Plan (no. PL - 03 Rev D). 3. The development hereby approved shall adhere to the following requirements in respect of the “reserved matters”: (a) Approval of the details of the layout of the development, the scale of each building, the appearance of each building, access to and within the site and the landscaping of the development (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. (b) Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition (a) above, relating to the layout of the development, the scale of each building, the appearance of each building, access to and within the site and the landscaping of the development, shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority and shall be carried out as approved. (c) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. (d) The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. 4. Construction shall not begin until a detailed construction phase surface water management plan for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be carried out in accordance with the a pproved details. 5. No development shall take place until a Biodiversity Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall include the following: (a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities. Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 (b) Identification of "biodiversity protection zones". (c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements). (d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features. (e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works. (f) Responsible persons and lines of communication. (g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person. (h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs. (i) Details of any lighting required The approved Biodiversity CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details. 6. The development hereby approved shall not commence until the following demolition and construction details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall be limited to the following measures: (a) Details of site management contact details and responsibilities; (b) A plan detailing the site logistics arrangements on a phase - by - phase basis (as applicable), including: i. location of site compound ii. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, iii. location for the loading, unloading and storage of plant and materials (including any stripped topsoil), iv. site offices (including location, height, size and appearance), v. the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during construction, vi. location of site access points for construction vehicles, vii. location of on - site parking, viii. locations and details for the provision of wheel washing facilities an d dust suppression facilities (c) The arrangements for public consultation and liaison prior to and during the demolition and construction works – newsletters, fliers etc, to include site management contact details for residents; (d) Details of any floodlighting, including location, height, type and direction of light sources, hours of operation and intensity of illumination All demolition and construction activities shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the details and measures approved. During site clearance, preparation and construction the dust and Air Emission Mitigation measures described on Mitigation During Construction section of the Air Quality Assessment report (RPS, April 2025) shall be adopted. 7. The development hereby approved shall adhere to the following requirements in respect of a rchaeolo gical works: Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 20 (a) No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological work has been secured in accordance with a Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (b) The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the archaeological site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under criterion (a) and that provision for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. 8. No development shall commence, including demolition pursuant to the permission granted, ground clearance, or bringing equipment, machinery or materials onto the site, until the following preliminaries have been completed in the sequence set out below: (a) All trees on the site shown for retention on approved drawing number ‘SJA TPP 24226 - 041a’, as well as those off - site whose root protection areas ingress into the site, shall be fully protected throughout all construction works by tree protective fencing affixed to the ground in full accordance with section 6 of BS 5837 'Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations' (2012). (b) Once installed, the fencing shall be maintained during the course of the development works and until all machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. (c) Areas so fenced off shall be treated as zones of prohibited access, and shall no t be used for the storage of materials, equipment or machinery in any circumstances. No mixing of cement, concrete, or use of other materials or substances shall take place within any tree protective zone, or close enough to such a zone that seepage or displacement of those materials and substances could cause them to enter a zone. Any trees or hedges on the site which die or become damaged during the construction process shall be replaced with trees or hedging plants of a type, size and in positions agreed by the Local Planning Authority. 9. No development shall commence until a Non - Licensed Precautionary Method Statement for Great Crested Newts has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include, but not be limited to, a presence/absence survey an d assessment, mitigation measures, and enhancement measures where necessary. The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved recommendations and shall be maintained thereafter. 10. Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed mitigation strategy establishing the on - site measures to improve air quality at both the operational and construction phases shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Author ity. The strategy shall be written in accordance with the Air Quality & Emissions Reduction Guidance and shall detail the calculated damage costs that will be spent on practical mitigation measures. The approved detail within the strategy shall thereafter be strictly adhered to. Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 21 11. No development shall commence until the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination, (including asbestos contamination), of the site be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority: (a) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: i. all previous uses ii. potential contaminants associated with those uses iii. a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors iv. Potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. The following aspects (b) – (c) shall be dependent on the outcome of the above preliminary risk assessment (a) and may not necessarily be required. (b) An intrusive site investigation scheme to provide information for a detailed ris k assessment to the degree and nature of the risk posed by any contamination to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. (c) Full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken based on the results of the intrusive site investigation (a) and a verification plan providing details of what data will be collected in order to demonstrate that the remedial works are complete. (d) The scheme shall be implemented as approved. 12. Prior to any works above slab level, a Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy for protected, Priority and threatened species, prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The content of the Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy shall include the following: (a) Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed enhancement measures; (b) detailed designs or product descriptions to achieve stated objectives; (c) locations of proposed enhancement measures by appropriate maps and plans (where relevant); (d) persons responsible for implementing the enhancement measures; and (e) details of initial aftercare and long - term maintenance (where relevant). The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details shall be retained in that manner thereafter. 13. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority verification that the remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of condition 11(c) has been implement ed fully in accordance with the approved details. Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the scheme approved under condition 11(c ). Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 22 14. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until a fire hydrant(s) to BS 750 standards or stored water supply (in accordance with the West Sussex Fire and Rescue Guidance Notes) has been installed, connected to a water supply with approp riate pressure and volume for firefighting, and made ready for use in consultation with the WSCC Fire and Rescue Service. The hydrant(s) or stored water supply shall thereafter be retained as such. 15. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the necessary in - building physical infrastructure and external site - wide infrastructure to enable superfast broadband speeds of a minimum 30 megabits per second through full fibre broadban d connection has been provided to the premises. 16. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until a landscape management and maintenance plan (including long term design objectives, management responsibilities, a description of landscape components, management prescriptions, maintenanc e schedules and accompanying plan delineating areas of responsibility including areas to be defined as private gardens and other areas such as buffer zones) for all communal landscape areas (including any buffer zones) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape areas shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. 17. Prior to first use of each phase of the development a detailed verification report, (appended with substantiating evidence demonstrating the approved construction details and specifications have been implemented in accordance with the surface water drainag e scheme), has been submitted to and approved (in writing) by the Local Planning Authority. The verification report shall include photographs of excavations and soil profiles/horizons, any installation of any surface water structure and c ontrol mechanism. 18. The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied until details of the maintenance and management of the sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage scheme shall be impl emented prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details in perpetuity. The Local Planning Authority shall be granted access to inspect the sustainable drainage s cheme for the lifetime of the development. The details of the scheme to be submitted for approval shall include: (a) a timetable for its implementation, (b) details of SuDS features and connecting drainage structures and (c) maintenance requirement for each aspect, (d) a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation o f the sustainable drainage scheme throughout its lifetime. 19. No dwelling shall be first occupied until the vehicular access and associated works have been constructed in accordance with the details shown on the Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 23 drawing titled ‘Proposed Primary and Emergency (Inset) Site Access Arrangements’, drawing number 106205 - PEFXX - XX - D - H - 00004 revision P03. 20. No dwelling shall be first occupied until plans and details and a timetable for their provision for the emergency/pedestrian/cyclist access between the development and Kingsley Square have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The link once approved shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details. 21. Prior to occupation, a “lighting design strategy for biodiversity” in accordance with Guidance Note 08/23 (Institute of Lighting Professionals) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places or along important routes used to access key areas of their territory, for example, for foraging; and show how and where external lighting will be installed (through provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent the above species usi ng their territory or having access to their breeding sites and resting places. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the scheme and maintained thereafter in accordance with the scheme. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be installed without prior consent from the local planning authority. 22. All mitigation measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the Ecological Appraisal (Aspect Ecology, November 2024) and the Dormouse Technical Note 02 (Aspect Ecology, January 2025) as already submitted with the p lanning application and agreed in principle with the local planning authority prior to determination. This will include the appointment of an appropriately competent person e.g. an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) to provide on - site ecological expertise du ring construction. The appointed person shall undertake all activities, and works shall be carried out, in accordance with the approved details. 23. Prior to or in conjunction with the submission of each Reserved Matters application for the development hereby permitted, details of a scheme for the disposing of surface water by a means of sustainable drainage system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the approved drainage strategy and discharge rates as contained within the approved Flood Risk Assessment by Calibro Consultants Ltd, 22/01/2025, revision 4. The scheme shall be implemented in ful l in accordance with the approved details prior to first use of the development. The submitted details shall: (a) Provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharge from the site via a proposed Sustainable Drainage System and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving surface waters (designed in accordance with The SuDS Manual (CIRIA C753, 2015). (b) Demonstrate that the proposed surface water drainage system does not surcharge in the 1 in 1 critical storm duration, flood in the 1 in 30 plus Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 24 climate change critical storm duration or the 1 in 100 critical storm duration, (c) Demonstrate that any flooding that occurs when taking into account climate change for the 1 in 100 critical storm event in accordance with NPPF does not leave the site uncontrolled via overland flow routes 24. The dwelling(s) hereby permitted shall meet the optional requirement of building regulation G2 to limit the water usage of each dwelling to no more than 110 litres per person per day. The subsequently installed water limiting measures shall thereafter be retained. 25. All development shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted and approved Flood Risk Assessment (dated 22/01/2025), this includes all new residential dwellings to have a finished floor level raised a minimum of 150 mm above the surrounding propose d ground level unless otherwise first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 26. No works for the implementation of the development hereby approved shall take place outside of 08:00 hours to 18:00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 hours to 13:00 hours on Saturdays nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or public Holidays. END OF SCHEDULE Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 25 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: • Mr Hywel James MRTPI, Director , Nexus Planning • Mr Hashi Mohamed, Counsel, Landmark Chambers • Mr Simon Boakes BA (Hons), Company Solicitor , Croudace FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: • Mr Sam Whitehouse, Senior Planning Officer, Horsham District Council, MSc Spatial Planning • Mr Jason Hawkes, Principal Planning Officer, Horsham District Council, MA Town Planning INTERESTED PARTIES: • Cllr Josh Potts, ward councillor for Henfield • Cllr Russell Shaw, Henfield Parish Council • Mr Steve Bailey, Campaign to Protect Rural Henfield • Ms Tracey Chaplin, resident • Mr David Martin, resident • Mr David Haywood, resident DOCUMENTS • Shaping Development in Horsham District Planning Advice Note 2025 • Agreement pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of Land East of Charlwood Drive, Henfield, West Sussex , with covering statement and CIL compliance schedule⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
97. Since t he site is of archaeological significance , and to satisfy the requirements of HDPF Policy 34, I have included a condition requiring development be carried out in accordance an agreed programme of archaeological works. 98. To ensure the development meets the communication needs of future occupiers , in accordance with HDPF Policy 37 , I have included a condition requiring provision of superfast and full - fibre broadband connectivity. 99. In the interests of visual amenity and nature conservation in accordance with HDPF Policy 33 , I have included a condition requiring the development be carried in accordance with an agreed landscape management and maintenance plan . Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 100. To ensure the development provides safe and suitable access to/from the public highway, I have included a condition requiring the vehicular access and associated works are constructed prior to occupation of the development , and details of the emergency, pedestrian, and cyclist link between the development and Kingsley Square are submitted . 101. T o avoid adverse impact s on the Arun Valley SAC , SPA and Ramsar sites…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3344673 (Thanet District Council) — 2026-05-22
📍 Thanet District Council LPA code: E07000114 PINS reference: 3344673 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 May 2026 by V Goldberg BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 nd May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/Z2260/C/24/3344673 The Dolphin Public House, 53 - 55 Albion Street, Broadstairs , Kent CT10 1NE • The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr Max Williams against an enforcement notice issued by Thanet District Council. • The notice was issued on 19 April 2024. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is : W ithout planning permission, the formation of a first floor roof terrace/amenity space and the erection of a timber structure and fence to the first floor side elevation as indicated on the attached plan. • The requirements of the notice are to: 1. Remove the timber structure, and fencing at first floor level 2. Cease the unauthorised use of the flat roof as a roof terrace/amenity space • The period for compliance with the requirements is: 6 months from the date this notice takes effect . • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(a) and (c) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Since an appeal has been brought on ground (a), an application for planning permission is deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the Act. • Summary of Decision: The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed, and planning permission is granted in the terms set out below in the Formal Decision. Preliminary Matter 1. The postcode ha s been taken from the appeal form and added to the address in the banner heading for completeness. The Ground (c) A ppeal 2. An appeal on this ground is that the matter alleged, if it has occurred, does not constitute a breach of planning control. T he appellant’s case is made on the basis that no material change of use has occurred. 3. While the E nforcement N otice (EN) does not specifically allege a material change of use has occurred, it refers to the “formation of a first floor roof terrace/amenity space” and the steps to be taken to remedy the breach of planning control include the cessation of the “unauthorised use of the flat roof as a roof terrace /amenity space” . I saw that any use the flat roof is being put to is incidental/ancillary to the residential use of the flat. The Co uncil has also confirmed that the EN is directed at operational development. On this basis , I am satisfied that no material change of use has occurre d . 4. T he ground (c) appeal succeeds to this limited extent. I t now falls to me to consider whether the EN can be corrected or varied to provide clarity without causing injustice. 5. It is the erection of a timber structure and fence that constitute the breach . The formation and enclosure of a roof terrace has occurred as a result of part of the Appeal Decision APP/Z2260/C/24/3344673 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 breach. To make this clear the allegation , at paragraph 3 , could be corrected by replacing it with : “ Without planning permission, the erection of a fence and timber structure on the flat roof at first - floor level , resulting in the formation and enclosure of a roof terrace ” . This correction would more accurately reflect the nature of the breach as operational development, as it identifies the specific development undertake n . I t also removes reference to an attached plan which the Council ha s c onfirmed does not exist. Th is correction would not result in any injustice to either party, as both the Council and the appellant have addressed the timber structure an d fence. I shall correct the EN accordingly. 6. Section 173 of the Act requires an EN to specify the steps that the Council requires to be taken, or the activities it requires to cease, in order to remedy the breach of planning control or any injury to amenity. Accordingly, the steps set out in section 5 of the EN must align with the allegation. 7. To achieve this, Step 2 will be deleted. This variation would not result in injustice to either party, as it is agreed that the EN is directed at operational development, and the use of the roof as a terrace or amenity space does not constitute operational development. These variations do not alter the substance of the alleged breach or expand the scope of the EN but merely ensure that the requirements properly reflect the allegation to which they relate and provide precision. Appeal on Ground (a) and the Deemed Application for Planning Permission 8. An appeal under ground (a) is that planning permission should be granted for the matter alleged. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the conservation area. Reasons 9. The appeal site is located within the Broadstairs Conservation Area (CA). The significance of the CA is derived from its cohesive historic townscape, including its traditional building forms, roofscape and materials, which collectively make a positive cont ribution to its historic architectural character and appearance. 10. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. 11. The fence is visible from the public car park but does not appear visually prominent. This is because it reads as a modest continuation of the existing flank wall, within the context of a largely blank elevation facing the car park, which reduces its visua l prominence in wider views. In this respect, it aligns with other plain elevations in the immediate context and, serves to screen elements behind it that might otherwise contribute to visual clutter. Whilst the development obscures views of the eaves of t he roof forms it runs parallel to, views of the roofscape remain evident from the car park, and the fence does not significantly disrupt the appreciation of the existing roof forms. 12. It is acknowledged that fencing at first - floor level is not a common feature within this part of the CA . However, during my visit, I noted the presence of several timber - clad elevations at both ground and first - floor levels facing into the car park. Whilst these are not directly comparable to first - floor fencing, they do present a broadly similar visual app earance and demonstrate that timber is an established Appeal Decision APP/Z2260/C/24/3344673 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 material contributing to the character and appearance of this part of the CA . I therefore do not find that the use of timber in this instance is unacceptable in this context. I also agree with the appellant that a condition requiring the fence to be maintained in the same colour as the adjoining wall would ensure a consistent and appropriate appearance. 13. T he Council indicate that no evidence has been provided to justify the fence on security grounds and crime . However, given that its appearance preserves the character and appearance of the CA, such justification is not necessary. 14. The timber structure is positioned behind the fence and connected to it. During my visit, it appeared to be used for storage. The Council accept that the structure has limited visibility from the public realm but allege that its position and height are out of keeping with the pattern of development for the area. 15. However, given its limited visibility, I find that the timber structure would not adverse ly affect the character or appearance of the CA . In particular, its siting behind the fence almost entirely screens it from views within the public realm. Whilst its form and scale may differ from typical built development in the area, there is a variety of building forms present such that no direct co mparison can reasonably be made. Moreover, the structure is not readily appreciable from public vantage points and, as a result, no harm arises to the established pattern of development. 16. I t is asserted that the fencing and timber structure formalise the roof space as a terrace and such a feature would not typically be expected at this level or in this location. However, during my visit, the enclosed area did not appear to be used as a roof terrace. Part of the roof space is narrow, with a limited gap between the timber structure and flank wall and is further constrained by changes in level and cabling underfoot, which restrict its usability. The roof covering also remains exposed and does n ot appear to provide a suitable surface for regular use. In the absence of any associated domestic paraphernalia, I am not persuaded that the space functions, or is likely to function, as a roof terrace. 17. For the above reasons, the development preserve s the character and appearance of the CA . It therefore compl ies with Policies QD02, SP36, HE02 and HE03 of the Thanet Local Plan 1 , and Policy BSP9 2 of the Broadstairs and St Peters Neighbourhood Plan. Collectively, these policies seek to ensure that development promotes and reinforces local character, safeguards heritage assets from inappropriate development, and preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the area. Other Matters 18. Broadstairs and St Peter’s Town Council ha s raised that the rea r of the development is secured to the Broadstairs & St Peter’s Town Council owned buildin g. Whilst this may be the case, this would be a matter for the Town Council to pursue with the appellant, as m atters relating to land ownership and any associated legal rights are not material planning considerations . 1 Adopted July 2020 2 Adopted May 2021 Appeal Decision APP/Z2260/C/24/3344673 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 Conditions 19. A condition is required to ensure that the fence is maintained in a colour matching the adjoining wall, so that the development reads as a continuation of the wall and preserves the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal succeeds on ground (a). I shall grant planning permission for the development as described in the notice as corrected. The EN will be corrected and quashed. Formal Decision 21. It is directed that the EN be corrected by: • the deletion of the words “ Without planning permission, the formation of a first floor roof terrace/amenity space and the erection of a timber structure and fence to the first floor side elevation as indicated on the attached plan ” . And their substitution with the words “ Without planning permission, the erection of a fence and timber structure on the flat roof at first - floor level, resulting in the formation and enclosure of a roof terrace” . And varied by: • the deletion of requirement 2) in section 5 in its entirety. 22. Subject to the correction and variation, the appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed and planning permission is granted on the application deemed to have been made under section177(5) of the 1990 Act (as amended) for the development already carried out, namely the erection of a fence and timber structure on the flat roof at first - floor level, resulting in the formation and enclosure of a roof terrace at The Dolphin Public House, 53 - 55 Albion Street, Broadstairs, Kent subject to the condition be low: 1) The colour of the fence hereby permitted shall hereafter be maintained to match the colour of the adjoining wall. V Goldberg INSPECTOR⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
In the absence of any associated domestic paraphernalia, I am not persuaded that the space functions, or is likely to function, as a roof terrace. 17. For the above reasons, the development preserve s the character and appearance of the CA . It therefore compl ies with Policies QD02, SP36, HE02 and HE03 of the Thanet Local Plan 1 , and Policy BSP9 2 of the Broadstairs and St Peters Neighbourhood Plan. Collectively, these policies seek to ensure that development promotes and reinforces local character, safeguards heritage assets from inappropriate development, and preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the area. Other Matters 18. Broadstairs and St Peter’s Town Council ha s raised that the rea r of the development is secured to the Broadstairs & St Peter’s Town Council owned buildin g. Whilst this may be the case, this would be a matter for the Town Council to pursue with the appellant, as m atters relating to land ownership and any associated legal rights are not material planning considerations . 1 Adopted July 2020 2 Adopted May 2021 Appeal Decision APP/Z2260/C/24/3344673 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above, I co…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3374913 (Tandridge District Council) — 2026-05-21
📍 Tandridge District Council LPA code: E07000215 PINS reference: 3374913 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 10-12, 17-18 & 20 March 2025 Accompanied site visit made between 1 - 5pm on 16 March 2025 by Nick Fagan BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/M3645/W/25/3374913 Former Laporte Works Site, Nutfield Road, Nutfield, Surrey RH1 4HG The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant outline planning permission dated 3 October 2025. The appeal is made by Nutfield Park Developments Limited against the decision of Tandridge District Council (the Local Planning Authority or LPA). The LPA application Ref is 2023/1281. The development proposed is: Outline planning permission for the development of the site for new homes (Use Class C3) and Integrated Retirement Community (Use Classes C2, E(e), F2), creation of new access, landscaping and associated works to facilitate the development, in phases which are severable (Outline with all matters reserved, except for Access). This decision is issued in accordance with section 56 (2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as amended and supersedes that issued on 6 May 2026. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for the development of the site for new homes (Use Class C3) and Integrated Retirement Community (Use Classes C2, E(e), F2), creation of new access, landscaping and associated works to facilitate the development, in phases which are severable (Outline with all matters reserved, except for Access), at Former Laporte Works Site , Nutfield Road, Nutfield, Surrey RH1 4HG in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2023/1281, subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule below. Preliminary Matters 2. The planning obligations contained in a draft S106 agreement (the S106) were discussed at the Inquiry, specifically on the afternoon of Day 5. It was agreed that an executed copy of the S106 would be provided to me by 2 April. The final executed S106 was in fact sent on (and dated) 27 March 2025. I refer to this as necessary below. Main Issues 3. The main issues are: Whether the proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in the Metropolitan Green Belt in terms of whether it would fail to comply with the requirements set out in paragraphs 155 & 156 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), specifically whether: it would ªÌ öÀ>Èb€ŽÈ :t‚ œ Ô¢Dî8f €š ÖH ²Ìî 0 V \ Ž Ö è ò * P f º Ô ö " 4 > P j ” ” ª : Ê ž ì!2 ª ª ª ª ª ª!2 ª ª ª : :!„ Ê Ê Ê ì ì ì ì!2!2!2 ª!–!Ì!–!ê"!–!ê""4"r"œ"¶!–!ê"Ä"¶"ĸ"ö##B#Ø#ت$f$œ$â%#%f¸ª%ª%t%¶#B&D$f&z&ì%f%f#Ø#Ø%t%t' P P P P P P P P P P P j j j j j j j j j j j ” ” ” ”ò $ÿ´ <ÿÛñÿ´öÿÛùÿ´ûÿ´ÿÛ ÿÛÿÛ ÿh ÿ´ 7ÿh 9ÿ :ÿÛ <ÿh YÿÛ ZÿÛ \ÿî ¶ÿ´ 3ÿh 5ÿ 6ÿÛ 8ÿh Zÿh Šÿh ‹ÿh Œÿh ÿh ”ÿÛ •ÿÛ –ÿÛ —ÿÛ ˜ÿh ™ÿh šÿh ÿÛ þø þø $ÿh ÿh Aÿh Bÿh Cÿh Dÿh Eÿh Fÿh [ÿh \ÿh ]ÿh žÿh ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ # ÿÛ 7ÿh 9ÿ :ÿ´ <ÿD \ÿÛ ¶ÿ ÿÎ 3ÿh 5ÿ 6ÿ´ 8ÿD ZÿD Šÿh ‹ÿh Œÿh ÿh ”ÿ´ •ÿ´ –ÿ´ —ÿ´ ˜ÿD ™ÿD šÿD ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿ´ þø þø $ÿh ÿh Aÿh Bÿh Cÿh Dÿh Eÿh Fÿh [ÿh \ÿh ]ÿh žÿh 7ÿÛ 9ÿÛ :ÿÛ <ÿ´ 3ÿï 5 6 8ÿÜ ZÿÜ Šÿï ‹ÿï Œÿï ÿï ” • – — ˜ÿÜ ™ÿÜ šÿÜ G ÿD ÿD ÿD ÿh ÿh $ÿh 2ÿÛ DÿD FÿD HÿD Lÿî RÿD Uÿh VÿD Xÿh Zÿh \ÿh ÿº ÿÛ ÿD ÿD ÿh ÿh "ÿÛ &ÿÛ .ÿÛ 0ÿÛ ;ÿÛ Aÿh Bÿh Cÿh Dÿh Eÿh Fÿh GÿÛ QÿÛ RÿÛ SÿÛ TÿÛ UÿÛ [ÿh \ÿh ]ÿh ^ÿÛ _ÿÛ `ÿÛ aÿÛ iÿÛ jÿÛ kÿÛ lÿÛ ÿÛ €ÿÛ ÿÛ žÿh ÿº ÿº ÿº ÿº ÿº ÿº ÿº ÿº ÿº ÿº ÿº DÿD Pÿh Qÿh Rÿh Sÿh 8 ÿh ÿ´ ÿh ÿÛ ÿÛ $ÿ Dÿ´ Hÿ´ LÿÛ Rÿ´ UÿÛ XÿÛ \ÿÛ ÿÎ ÿØ ÿ´ ÿ´ ÿÛ ÿ Aÿ Bÿ Cÿ Dÿ Eÿ Fÿ [ÿ \ÿ ]ÿ žÿ þÿÎ ÿÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿØ ÿØ ÿØ ÿØ ÿØ ÿØ ÿØ ÿØ ÿØ ÿØ ÿØ Dÿ´ PÿÛ QÿÛ RÿÛ SÿÛ ÿ´ ÿÛ ÿ´ $ÿÛ DÿÛ HÿÛ Lÿî ÿÛ ÿÛ ÿÛ AÿÛ BÿÛ CÿÛ DÿÛ EÿÛ FÿÛ [ÿÛ \ÿÛ ]ÿÛ žÿÛ DÿÛ ÿÛ ÿD ÿh ÿD ÿ´ ÿ´ $ÿ Dÿh Hÿ LÿÛ Rÿ Sÿ Tÿ Xÿ´ Yÿ´ ÿ ÿ ÿ Aÿ Bÿ Cÿ Dÿ Eÿ Fÿ [ÿ \ÿ ]ÿ žÿ Dÿ ¶ L ÿ ÿÛ ÿ´ ¶ L ÿh ÿh ÿ ÿ 3ÿh 5ÿ 6ÿÛ 8ÿh Zÿh Šÿh ‹ÿh Œÿh ÿh ”ÿÛ •ÿÛ –ÿÛ —ÿÛ ˜ÿh ™ÿh šÿh ´ÿà ¾ÿà Áÿà µÿ´ ÿ VÿÛ ¶ÿ´ ÿ ÿ ÿ Aÿ Bÿ Cÿ Dÿ Eÿ Fÿ [ÿ \ÿ ]ÿ žÿ Dÿ -ÿ6ÿ LþîQþ×Tÿ ÿÎ 3ÿh 5ÿ 6ÿ´ 8ÿD ZÿD Šÿh ‹ÿh Œÿh ÿh ”ÿ´ •ÿ´ –ÿ´ —ÿ´ ˜ÿD ™ÿD šÿD ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ ÿÎ 3ÿï 5 6 8ÿÜ ZÿÜ Šÿï ‹ÿï Œÿï ÿï ” • – — ˜ÿÜ ™ÿÜ šÿÜ 6 ÿº ÿÛ ÿD ÿD ÿh ÿh "ÿÛ &ÿÛ .ÿÛ 0ÿÛ ;ÿÛ Aÿh Bÿh Cÿh Dÿh Eÿh Fÿh GÿÛ QÿÛ RÿÛ SÿÛ TÿÛ UÿÛ [ÿh \ÿh ]ÿh ^ÿÛ _ÿÛ `ÿÛ aÿÛ iÿÛ jÿÛ kÿÛ lÿÛ ÿÛ €ÿÛ ÿÛ žÿh ÿº ÿº ÿº ÿº ÿº ÿº ÿº ÿº ÿº ÿº ÿº DÿD Pÿh Qÿh Rÿh Sÿh þú þúø Ñùÿ=ûÿ=ÿ=ÿ ' ^ ¡ÿ= ¤ÿ= «ÿ= ¹ÿ= ùÿéûÿéÿé ÿ‘ÿ‘ ¡ÿé ¤ÿé «ÿé ´ÿ× ¹ÿé ¾ÿ× Áÿ× ùÿ° ÿ‘ÿ‘ ¡ÿ° ¤ÿ° «ÿ° ¹ÿ° ¾ÿà Áÿà 2ÿÓÿÛ$ÿÅŒÿÓ "ÿÉ .ÿã/ÿã1ÿã3ÿãÿãÿã ÿã"ÿã&ÿã+ÿã ÿÛ ÿÛ ÿÛ AÿÛ BÿÛ CÿÛ DÿÛ EÿÛ FÿÛ [ÿÛ \ÿÛ ]ÿÛ žÿÛ DÿÛ ÿ´,ÿ–-ÿ‰ÿ– ÿ9 þøþøÿÛ ÿÛ$ÿÛ ¨ÿ– ¯ÿ– ³ÿ9 ´ÿH µÿ÷ ½ÿ– ¾ÿH ÁÿH ÿ‘ÿ‘ ¡ÿé ¤ÿé «ÿé ´ÿ× ¹ÿé ¾ÿ× Áÿ× .ÿ/ÿ1ÿ3ÿø ÕùÿhûÿhÿhÿÿÛÿÛÿÛÿÛÿÛ ÿÛ ÿ' jÿhÿ¾ ÿJ ÿJ ÿé ÿé:ÿ¼>ÿÓ@ AÿéEÿ¼F HÿÓNÿ¼WÿéY ZÿÓ\ÿ¼_ÿ¼bÿ¼dÿ¼eÿ¼fÿ¼hÿ¼iÿ¼jÿ¼kÿ¼mÿ¼oÿ¼sÿ¼uÿ¼vÿ¼xÿ¼yÿ¼ Åÿ« ÊÿÓ ÔÿÓ ×ÿé ÛÿÓ Þÿ« áÿ« íÿé * ÿ` ÿ` ÿÓ ÿÓ:ÿ¼>ÿ¼A EÿÓNÿéW Y \ÿÓ]ÿÓ^ÿé_ÿÓ`ÿéaÿébÿédÿéeÿºfÿégÿéhÿÓiÿéjÿékÿÓoÿépÿérÿésÿéxÿéyÿé È Z Éÿ¦ ÊÿÓ Ðÿ¼ ÔÿÓ × ÛÿÓ äÿé í ï :ÿ>ÿwEÿFÿéLÿ`MÿJN QÿºYÿÓeÿÓ ÃÿÄ Êÿ• ÌÿÄ Îÿ† Ôÿ• Ûÿ• âÿÄ ãÿ† AÿéHÿºKÿºNÿ¼hÿÓmÿÓ Åÿº ×ÿé Þÿº áÿº íÿé Z D_ -h - × çÿé í Z -_ m × çÿé í ! ¶ÿ Yÿ¼ Ãÿ ÅÿÖ ÇÿÓ ÊÿÓ ËÿÓ Ìÿ ÏÿÓ ÐÿØ ÑÿÓ ÒÿÓ ÓÿÓ ÔÿÓ ÕÿÓ ØÿÓ ÚÿÓ ÛÿÓ ÜÿÓ ÝÿÓ ÞÿÖ ßÿÓ àÿÓ áÿÖ âÿ æÿÓ èÿÓ éÿÓ ëÿÓ ìÿÓ îÿÓ ïÿ¤ ðÿÓ - ¶ÿ:ÿ¦>ÿÓ@ÿAÿ¼EÿÓFÿÓHÿ¤Kÿ¤Lÿ OÿQÿ3Wÿ¼Yÿ¤ Ãÿ ÅÿÖ ÇÿÓ ÊÿÓ ËÿÓ Ìÿ ÏÿÓ ÐÿØ ÑÿÓ ÒÿÓ ÓÿÓ ÔÿÓ ÕÿÓ ØÿÓ ÚÿÓ ÛÿÓ ÜÿÓ ÝÿÓ ÞÿÖ ßÿÓ àÿÓ áÿÖ âÿ æÿÓ èÿÓ éÿÓ ëÿÓ ìÿÓ îÿÓ ïÿ¤ ðÿÓ >ÿº@ÿÑEÿ¤H N -OÿºYÿÓ^ -` f y Ãÿw Åÿé Êÿ Ìÿw Îÿ© ÐÿÓ Ôÿ ÖÿÑ Ûÿ Þÿé áÿé âÿw ãÿ© ä - åÿ¼ çÿä ïÿÓ :ÿ¦>ÿ@ÿ¼EÿHÿéKÿéLÿwOÿ¼Qÿ¤ Ãÿw Åÿé Êÿ Ìÿw Îÿ© ÐÿÓ Ôÿ ÖÿÑ Ûÿ Þÿé áÿé âÿw ãÿ© ä - åÿ¼ çÿä ïÿÓ aÿÓeÿéiÿémÿ¼qÿwwÿé ^ `ÿéeÿÓmÿÓoÿ¼qÿ¼tÿ¼yÿé ZÿÓ[ÿé^ÿÓ_ÿÓ`ÿÓaÿÓeÿ¼fÿÓhÿÓkÿÓlÿémÿ¼nÿÓqÿtÿ¤yÿÓ Zÿé^ÿé_ÿéaÿéeÿéfÿéhÿékÿéyÿÓ mÿé Zÿé^ÿé`ÿéaÿéeÿ¼fÿékÿélÿémÿ¼nÿéoÿ¦qÿ l m qÿÓt Zÿé[ÿé^ÿé_ÿé`ÿéeÿÓfÿéhÿékÿÓmÿ¼nÿéqÿtÿ¼ [ kÿél qÿÓ mÿéqÿ¼ aÿékÿémÿénÿéwÿé `ÿÓaÿéeÿÓmÿ¼oÿÓqÿ¤wÿéyÿÓ `ÿéaÿéeÿÓfÿémÿ¼oÿ¼qÿ¤wÿéyÿé `ÿémÿéoÿÓqÿ¼tÿÓ ÿé ÿéZÿé^ÿé`ÿéaÿéeÿÓfÿéhÿéjÿékÿémÿÓwÿéyÿé ÿw ÿw[ -` eÿéw [ _ eÿÓh mÿÓqÿ¤ Zÿé_ÿéaÿéhÿékÿénÿÓqÿ¤wÿé Z m Z m - qÿJ `ÿéeÿÓoÿÑyÿé `ÿéeÿÓoÿ¼qÿ¤ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ©ÿÓ ªÿÓ 9ÿÄ <ÿ’ ºÿ’ éÿ’Óÿ’ãÿ’ 7ÿ¦ 9ÿ° <ÿ’ ºÿ’ éÿ’ ÿ¦!ÿ¦Çÿ¦Óÿ’ãÿ’ <ÿˆ ºÿˆ éÿˆÓÿˆãÿˆ ÿ´ ÿ´ ÿ´ ´ÿ´ ¶ÿ´ 3ÿh 5ÿ 6ÿÛ 8ÿh Zÿh Šÿh ‹ÿh Œÿh ÿh ”ÿÛ •ÿÛ –ÿÛ —ÿÛ ˜ÿh ™ÿh šÿh þø þø «þø ÿh Aÿh Bÿh Cÿh Dÿh Eÿh Fÿh [ÿh \ÿh ]ÿh žÿh ÿÛ ÿ ÿ ´ÿ ¶ÿ 3ÿh 5ÿ 6ÿ´ 8ÿD ZÿD Šÿh ‹ÿh Œÿh ÿh ”ÿ´ •ÿ´ –ÿ´ —ÿ´ ˜ÿD ™ÿD šÿD þø þø «þø ÿ† Aÿ† Bÿ† Cÿ† Dÿ† Eÿ† Fÿ† [ÿ† \ÿ† ]ÿ† žÿ† 3ÿÛ 5ÿÛ 6ÿÛ 8ÿ´ Zÿ´ ŠÿÛ ‹ÿÛ ŒÿÛ ÿÛ ”ÿÛ •ÿÛ –ÿÛ —ÿÛ ˜ÿ´ ™ÿ´ šÿ´ $ ÿD ÿD «ÿD ÿh "ÿÛ &ÿÛ .ÿÛ 0ÿÛ ;ÿÛ Aÿh Bÿh Cÿh Dÿh Eÿh Fÿh GÿÛ QÿÛ RÿÛ SÿÛ TÿÛ UÿÛ [ÿh \ÿh ]ÿh ^ÿÛ _ÿÛ `ÿÛ aÿÛ iÿÛ jÿÛ kÿÛ lÿÛ ÿÛ €ÿÛ ÿÛ žÿh ÿh ÿ´ ÿh ÿÛ ÿÛ «ÿh ±ÿ´ ²ÿ´ ÿ Aÿ Bÿ Cÿ Dÿ Eÿ Fÿ [ÿ \ÿ ]ÿ žÿ ÿ´ ÿÛ ÿ´ «ÿ´ ±ÿÛ ²ÿÛ ÿÛ AÿÛ BÿÛ CÿÛ DÿÛ EÿÛ FÿÛ [ÿÛ \ÿÛ ]ÿÛ žÿÛ ÿÛ ÿD ÿh ÿD ÿ´ ÿ´ «ÿD ±ÿh ²ÿh ÿ Aÿ Bÿ Cÿ Dÿ Eÿ Fÿ [ÿ \ÿ ]ÿ žÿ ÿ ÿ ´ÿ ¶ÿ ÿ´ ÿ´ ÿ´ ´ÿ´ ¶ÿ´ ¨ÿÈ ¯ÿÈ ³ÿ9 ´ÿH µÿí ½ÿÈ ¾þø Áþø þú þú «þú ¡ÿ= ¤ÿ= «ÿ= ¹ÿ= ¡ % ¤ % « % ´ÿ‘ ¹ % ¾ÿ‘ Áÿ‘ ¨ÿž ¯ÿž ½ÿž þú þú «þú ¡ÿÌ ¤ÿÌ «ÿÌ ¹ÿÌ ÿF ÿF ÿF «ÿF ±ÿF ²ÿF ¡ÿš ¤ÿš ¨ÿÛ «ÿš ¯ÿÛ ¸ÿÛ ¹ÿš ½ÿÛ ¿ÿÛ ÿF ÿh ÿF «ÿF ±ÿh ²ÿh ¡ÿh ¤ÿh «ÿh ¹ÿh ¡ÿö ¤ÿö «ÿö ¹ÿö ¾ÿ‘ Áÿ‘ ´ÿà ¾ÿ‘ Áÿ‘ ÿF ÿh ÿF ÿ´ ÿ´ «ÿF ±ÿh ²ÿh ¡ÿh ¤ÿh «ÿh ¹ÿh Ãÿ~ Ìÿ~ âÿ~ ÿ3 ÿ3 ÿé ÿé «ÿ3 Åÿ¼ Êÿ¦ Ðÿ` Ôÿ¦ ×ÿé Ûÿ¦ Þÿ¼ áÿ¼ íÿé ïÿÓ % Ãÿ¼ Åÿé Çÿé Êÿ¼ Ëÿé Ìÿ¼ Îÿ Ïÿé Ðÿî Ñÿé Òÿé Óÿé Ôÿ¼ Õÿé ×ÿé Øÿé Úÿé Ûÿ¼ Üÿé Ýÿé Þÿé ßÿé àÿé áÿé âÿ¼ ãÿ åÿÓ æÿé çÿØ èÿé éÿé êÿ© ëÿé ìÿé íÿé îÿé ðÿé # ÿ ÿ ´ÿ ¶ÿ Ãÿ ÅÿÖ ÇÿÓ Êÿç ËÿÓ Ìÿ ÏÿÓ ÑÿÓ ÒÿÓ ÓÿÓ Ôÿç ÕÿÓ Öÿ¿ ØÿÓ ÚÿÓ Ûÿç ÜÿÓ ÝÿÓ ÞÿÖ ßÿÓ àÿÓ áÿÖ âÿ æÿÓ èÿÓ éÿÓ ëÿÓ ìÿÓ îÿÓ ïÿø ðÿÓ ÿ` ÿ` ÿÓ ÿÓ «ÿ` Êÿ¼ Ðÿž Ôÿ¼ × Ûÿ¼ äÿé í ï ÿ` ÿ` ´ÿ` ¶ÿ` Ãÿ3 Åÿµ Ê Ìÿ3 Îÿ® Ô ×ÿ¦ Û Þÿµ áÿµ âÿ3 ãÿ® íÿ¦ Ãÿw ÅÿÓ ÊÿÓ Ìÿw Îÿ ÔÿÓ ×ÿÓ ÛÿÓ ÞÿÓ áÿÓ âÿw ãÿ íÿÓ Ãÿ© ÅÿÓ ÊÿÓ Ìÿ© Îÿ¤ ÔÿÓ ÖÿÚ ×ÿÓ ÛÿÓ ÞÿÓ áÿÓ âÿ© ãÿ¤ äÿÓ åÿ¼ çÿº êÿo íÿÓ ïÿÓ × çÿé í Ãÿw Åÿé Êÿ¼ Ìÿw Îÿw ÐÿÄ Ôÿ¼ Öÿ¼ Ûÿ¼ Þÿé áÿé âÿw ãÿw ä - åÿ¼ ïÿÓ # þÁ þÁ ÿé ÿé «þÁ Ãÿ¿ Çÿé Êÿœ Ëÿé Ìÿ¿ Îÿ¤ Ïÿé Ñÿé Òÿé Óÿé Ôÿœ Õÿé ×ÿÓ Øÿé Úÿé Ûÿœ Üÿé Ýÿé ßÿé àÿé âÿ¿ ãÿ¤ æÿé èÿé éÿé ëÿé ìÿé íÿÓ îÿé ðÿé ÿJ ÿJ ÿé ÿé «ÿJ ÅÿÓ Êÿ¼ Ôÿ¼ ×ÿé Ûÿ¼ ÞÿÓ áÿÓ íÿé Ãÿ` Çÿé Êÿw Ëÿé Ìÿ` ÎÿJ Ïÿé Ñÿé Òÿé Óÿé Ôÿw Õÿé Øÿé Úÿé Ûÿw Üÿé Ýÿé ßÿé àÿé âÿ` ãÿJ æÿé èÿé éÿé ëÿé ìÿé îÿé ðÿé Åÿº ×ÿé Þÿº áÿº íÿé ÿ ÿ «ÿ n $ $ 23 *–– ,¶¶ -¹¹ .Ãà /ÇÇ 0ÑÑ 1ÓÓ 2ÖÖ 3ÝÝ 4ßß 5áá 6ãã 7ññ 8õ÷ 9ùù <ûû = > @ A H I J K ! M$$ P&& Q à à 7 â â 8 ä ä 9 ç ç : é é ; ë ë < ö ö = ø ù > û û @ ý ý A B C D E G H I J K L M N O P Q!! R## S%% T'' U 0 d 0 V 0 ‘ ™™ ”” ™™ ¤ §§ ” ’ T Z 1 B N H 1 . : : 4 1 $ $ $ 1 – ™™ JJ.JD 2 000* 2 ô ú 2 Ø ú Þ. 2  ä È ä 2 ª Ì Ì ° 2 ’ ´ ´ ˜ ´ è 2 x š š š ~ Î 2 ^ € € € d € ´ 2 B d ž 2 . P P Š 2 : : : t 2 – — ã ™™ .â 3 ˜Ìî 3 ú €€ ´Ö 3 à æf& 3 Ê PÐP 3 ² 88¸8ø 3 ˜ ž RX 3 € †:@ 3 f ììlì & 3 J PÐ 3 4 º:º 3 ¢¢"¢ì 3 ˆ¼äê 3 è n în¢ÊÐ 3 Ì RR ÒR†®´ 3 ® ´4h„ 3 – œ Pl 3⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Conditions 63. The conditions in the Schedule below are agreed between the main parties. I agree that they all meet the tests for conditions in the NPPF and PPG and that they are necessary for the individual reasons appended to each of them. Conclusion 64. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. Nick Fagan
⚖️ Citation note: When using these passages in your own appeal statement, cite each by the PINS appeal reference (visible in the title) and quote sparingly. Inspector decisions are public — attribution is the right courtesy and gives your statement gravitas. The verbatim passages above are the strongest form of precedent you can deploy.
📊 Data sources & freshness
Use this when preparing your appeal statement — the verbatim Inspector reasoning is the strongest precedent you can deploy.
- PINS plain_text (mined daily) ↗
Inspector decisions extracted from PINS Casework Portal PDFs. Filter "Outcome: Allowed" + theme keyword match. - Inspector Reasoning Extractor
Pulls Main Issue + Conclusion sections per PINS templated structure. Shared with similar_refusals.php via includes/inspector_reasoning.php.