🏆 Winning Arguments

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…

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 As the most important development plan policies for determining the appeal are deemed to be out of date, I give greater weight to the policies of the Framework.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…

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…

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

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 …

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 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…

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