🏆 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 3332713 (Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area *) — 2024-05-02
📍 Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * PINS reference: 3332713 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 March 2024 by A Hickey MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 Langlands, Chivery , Aston Clinton , Buckinghamshire HP23 6LD The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Liam Bond against the decision of Buckinghamshire Council - North Area (Aylesbury). The application Ref is 23/00439/APP. The development proposed is d emolition of existing dwelling and site buildings, erection of replacement dwelling house with associated infrastructure, landscaping and ecological enhancement works. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing dwelling and site buildings, erection of replacement dwelling house with associated infrastructure, landscaping and ecological enhancement works at Langla nds, Chivery, Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire HP23 6LD in accordance with the terms of the application , Ref is 23/00439/APP , subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. I have taken the appeal site address from the decision notic e as it most accurately reflects the site location. 3. Since the lodging of the appeal, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) has been published. This has not raised any new matters which are determinative in this appeal. 4. On 22 November 2023, all designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty designation and policy status of AONBs are unchanged. I have accordingly referred to the Chilterns AONB as the Chilterns National Landscape (CNL) in my decision. 5. provided in relation to biodiversity 1 . While not before the Council at the time of their decision, they were provided at the outset of the a ppeal. As such, the Council and other parties have had opportunity to comment on them and would not be prejudiced by my taking them into account in my reasoning. 1 Biodiversity Net Gain Report: dated September 2023, prepared by ecology by design. Biodiversity Metric. Ecological Impact Assessment (non - EIA): dated October 2023, Prepared by ecology by design. Existing & Proposed Hard Surface (Stage 3) Rev 3 plan: dated 03 September 2023. Ancient Woodland letter: dated November 2023, prepared by Ecology by Design and Landscape & Ecology Management summary: 15 dated September 2023, prepared by SEED landscape design ltd. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 6. A completed and signed Unilateral Undertaking (UU) was also submitted s decision notice being issued. I return to this later. Main Issue s 7. The main issues are: whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the development plan and the Framework; the effects of the proposal upon biodiversity , including bats and trees ; and w he ther the proposal would provide a biodiversity net gain . Reasons 8. The appeal site is situated in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The proposed development would remove the existing dwelling, nearby outbuildings, and areas of hardstanding. A replacement part single part two - storey dwelling set partially below ground would then be erected . The scheme would also see a realigned driveway with a parking area and landsc aping. 9. Policy S4 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan ( V ALP ) states, amongst other things, that within the Green Belt , land will be protected from inappropriate development in accordance with national policy. Policy S4 a llows for some small - scale developme nt subject to a closed number of exceptions and providing that it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Of relevance to the appeal scheme are exceptions d. and f. 10. The Framework identi fies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Development within the Green Belt is inappropriate, with certain exceptions that are set out in Framework paragraphs 154 and 15 5 . It goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The main parties draw my attention to exceptions listed in Paragraph 1 54 at d) and g) , and I find these to be the most relevant for the purposes of this appeal. 11. E xception d) of the Framework relates to the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. The Framewor k does not provide a definition of what constitutes a materially larger replacement building. 12. V ALP Policy S4 at e xception d. supports the replacement of existing buildings in the Green Belt by new buildings that are not significantly larger in volume, nor mally by no more than 25 - 30% as measured externally of the original building (as it was first built or stood on 1 July 1948) . There is no substantive evidence before me that the host dwelling has been extended , and I have considered it to be as it was firs t built for the purposes of Policy S4 . 13. The supporting text to V ALP Policy S4 exclud es sheds and outbuildings being taken into account. While noting the wording of the Framework, the word building should not be read as excluding more than one building, providing as a matter of planning judgment , the buildings on site can sensibly be considered together in comparison with what is proposed to replace them. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 14. In this regard, given the outbuildings are close by and used in connection with the host d welling, I see no reason why they should not be considered for the purposes of exception d. G iven the more restrictive nature of Policy S 4 , its supporting text , and in these particular circumstances , it is not wholly consistent with the Framework , only mod erate weight can be applied to it and the approach of the Framework is to be preferred. 15. I also note the appeal decisions referred to by the main parties involving the incorporation of basement s and the consideration of being materially larger. As a matter of planning judgment, the incorporation of a basement is likely to be a material consideration and for the avoidance of doubt I have taken it into account in reaching my decision. 16. The Council acknowledges that , as a whole the scheme would result in an overall reduction in footprint and volume when taking into account all ancillary buildings on site . Nonetheless, the Council consider the replacement dwelling would be materially larger than the dwelling it replaces. 17. While mathematical calculations are not definitive in determining whether a replacement building would be materially larger, they do provide an indication of the overall scale of development. In this instance, the replacement dwelling would consolidate built dev elopment across the site , reducing the footprint of buildings on site . The proposed dwelling despite being set over two - floor s would be of a modest scale and would not be close to any boundary of the appeal site and would be partially built into the ground on the slope . W hile increasing the height of development onsite it would not result in a significantly more prominent building on the land , and the replacement dwelling would not be disproportionate in size having regard to the size of the appeal site. The replacement dwelling would consequently not be materially larger than the one it replaces. 18. No definition of small - scale development for the purposes of V ALP Policy S4 is before me. I see no reason why it should not be co nsidered small - scale. Additionally, the exclu sion of sheds and outbuildings for volume increases is part of the supporting text acting as interpretative guidance to Policy S4 , but is not a part of the policy itself, and it therefore carries less weight. In any event , V ALP Policy S4 supports development, in the Green Belt, in accordance with national policy . T he compliance with Policy S4 as a whole outweighs what I consider to be a minor conflict in terms of including sheds and outbuildings , contrary to the guidance contained within paragraph 3.35 of the V ALP . 19. In reaching the above conclusion, I have had re on V ALP Policy S4 containing . However, it also does not include an at the end of each criterion. As the Council have identified , Policy S4 criteria are a more succinct version of very similar criteria in the Framework , which have not fundame ntally changed through subsequent revisions . The Framework only requires development to comply with one listed exception to not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt . Given the thrust of Policy S4 is to protect the Green Belt in accordance with na tional policy , i see no reason, in this instance, why compliance must also be achieved with an additional criterion . Albeit , I accept there may be other instances where compliance with additional criteria could be re quired. 20. For the reasons above, the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and would therefore not cause Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 harm to it. It wo uld also comply with the overall aims of V ALP Policy S4 in so far as it relates to al lowing small scale development whilst protecting the Green Belt in accordance with national policy. Moreover, since the proposal would not result in inappropriate development in the Green Belt there is no need for me to consider the impact on openness or w hether very special circumstances exist. Biodiversity 21. During my site visit , I noted that the appeal site had been cleared of some areas of vegetation and trees but was largely reflective of the plans before me . I also observed what appeared to be more rec ent footing s that , from the evidence presented , relate to an extant permission 2 (extant consent) on the site for a replacement dwelling . The appeal site and buildings are also within close proximity to an area of ancient woodland . 22. VALP Policy NE8 tree and woodland resource . It goes on to note d evelopment that would lead to an individual or cumulative significant adverse impact on ancient woodland or ancient trees will be refused unless except ional circumstances can be demonstrated that the impacts to the site are clearly outweighed by the benefits of the development. Given the proximity of the site to the ancient woodland a minimum of 50m between the ancient woodland and any built development should be retained . 23. Polic ies EN1 and EN2 of the Aston Clinton Neighbourhood Plan (ACN P), amongst other things, seek to safeguard and avoid adverse impacts on protected natural habitats and species. T he Framework emphasises the importance of natural habitats and biodiversity and lays special emphasis on protecting irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) 3 also provides advice on appropriate buffer zones. 24. While acknowledging in relation exceptional footnote 67 of the Framework states not a closed list. In my view, it is there to assist the decisio n maker, who must have regard to a number of considerations. Moreover , whilst accept ing that both local and national policy have been updated since the extant consent was granted permission , it never the less results in a fallback position that must be given due consideration. 25. The proposed dwelling would be set back further from the ancient woodland than the extant consent for a dwelling on site . I t would include a substantial reduction in hard standing and allow for the incorporation of more native plant s pecies . B ased on th e evidence before me and my observation s on site it is highly likely should the appeal fail, the extant consent will be progressed to completion. As such, t he adverse effects would be substantially more harmful to the nearby ancient woodland than the proposed scheme. I ther e fore find that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated as required in Policy N8 of the VALP. 26. In reaching the above conclusion , I have had regard to the re cent Tree Protection Order (ref: 23/00026/TPO). However, there is no substantive 2 Ref: 19/0 0842/APP 3 Ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees: advice for making planning decisions : January 2022 Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 evidence to demonstrate scheme. Moreover, any works not covered by an exception would require permission that must be sought from the local planning authority , as would any boundary alterations or changes. 27. My atten tion has been drawn to two appeal s 4 that relate to development and ancient woodland. Whilst I do not have full details of these schemes they appear to be for a development of a greater scale and not for a replacement dwellin g such that I can draw no comparisons that lead me to reach a different conclusion on this issue. 28. Circular 06/2005 (the Circular) , referred to in paragraph 185 of the Framework, states that it is essential the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected is established before planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed. The need to ensure ec ological surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (the NERC Act) also places a duty on all public authorities to have re gard, in the exercise of their functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. 29. I have had regard to the comments regarding bats following the submission of an updated Ecological Impact Assessment 5 . The updated assessment detailed two additional surveys , which show building3 was used for foraging and lacked suitable roosting potential . There is no disagreement that buildng2 contains roosting bats and the surrounding area , including the appeal site is utilis ed for commuting and foraging . Subject to appropriate mitigation and enhancement features as detailed within the updated Ecological Impact Assessment the proposed development would not result in harm to protected species namely bats. 30. For the reasons set out above the proposal would have an acceptable effect upon biodiversity and protected species. This would be compliant with Policies NE1 of the VALP and Polic ies EN1 and EN2 of the ACNP . The proposal would also accord with chapter 15 o f the Framework , the NERC Act and the Circular. Biodiversity net gain 31. Policy NE1 of the VALP and Polic ies EN1 and EN2 of the ACNP, requires a biodiversity net gain (BNG). This will be sought by protecting, managing, enhancing and extending existing biodiv ersity resources and by creating new biodiversity resources. These policies are broadly consistent with the Framework and Planning Practice guidance in so far as they relate to conserving and enhancing the natural environment. 32. As noted above , the appellan t has provided a BNG Report and Biodiversity Metric as part of the appeal scheme. The main parties are in agreement regarding the findings of the documents, which show habitat gains through the creation of other neutral grassland and individual tree plant ing . 33. The Council's main concern is that biodiversity net gains must identify what is proposed within the application line and what is proposed outside the application line to secure the gains appropriately . 4 Appeal refs: APP/C1435/W/23/3321978 and APP/C1435/W/22/3307820 5 Ecological Impact Assessment (non - EIA) prepared by ecologybydesign dated October 2023 . Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 34. When taking into account the revised site boundary , the appeal site still appears to have sufficient space in which to accommodate planting, hedgerows , and other methods that could be employed to secure BNG. Moreover , a completed and signed UU includes obligations related to BNG on the adjoining land that while outside of the application boundary form s part of the wider site. This site could provide adequate biodiversity offsetting as required by the Council BNG SPD 6 . Therefore, a net - gain can ultimately be achieved through on - site mitigation an d/or off - site offsetting if required. 35. With the imposition of suitably worded condition s and the UU , the proposal would achieve BNG and this would be compliant with Polic y NE1 of the VALP , Polic ies EN1 and EN2 of the ACNP and the BNG SPD. The proposal would also accord with the Framework , in so far as it seeks to increase biodiversity. Other Matters 36. The appeal site falls within the zone of influence of the Chilterns Beechwood Special Area of Conservation ( SAC ) . The SAC is protected for its beech forests, semi - natural dry grasslands and scrub, and its population of stag beetles. As the competent authority in this case, I have a duty under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to consider, in the interests of the protection from harm, whether a given development would have likely significant effects on the integrity and/or special interest of the SAC either in isolation or in combination with other plans/projects. 37. New residential development within the z one of i nfluence has the p otential to adversely affect the integrity of the designated site through increased recreational pressure. As a replacement dwelling, the proposal would not result in a net increase of residential development and therefore would not lead to increased recre ational pressure. As such, I am satisfied that the proposal alone and in combination with other plans and projects would not have a likely significant effect on the SAC. 38. The appeal site is located within the CNL, where, as set out in paragraph 182 of the F ramework, great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty. T he Council did not object to the design of the replacement dwelling and based on the submitted plans and my observations onsite , I find no reason to disagree . The overall scale, massing and form of the dwelling would be inconspicuous in the wider countryside and would remove some deteriorating outbuildings . Th ese positive effect s would , therefore conserve and , to a limited degree , enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the C NL . Conditions 39. The Council have suggested that 18 conditions be imposed, which I conclude on below. In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the approach in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. Wher e pre - commencement conditions have been imposed these have been agreed by the appellant. 40. In addition to the statutory time limit condition, a condition specifying the plans that are approved and that the development shall be undertaken in accordance with t hem is required in the interests of certainty. 6 Buckinghamshire Council Biodiversity Net Gain - Supplementary Planning Document July 2022. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 41. To protect the character and appearance of the area, it is also necessary to impose conditions requiring details of the external surfaces of the development finished floor/ground level and have these approved by the Council. For similar reasons condition on hard and soft landscaping is also required. A condition on boundary treatments is also necessary for the character and appearance of the area and the residential amenities of nearby occupiers. 42. A condition f or a BNG Report and associated Biodiversity Metric was suggested by the Council. However, given that both have been submitted as part of the appeal process and details for BNG are also required as part of the Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, this condition would not be necessary or reasonable. In the interests of safeguarding protected species, ancient woodland and habitat conditions are also required. 43. Details of water consumption are necessary in the interest of reducing water consumption. Also, a condition is necessary for the submission of a surface water drainage scheme in the interests of sustainable drainage. 44. In the interests of parking and sustainable travel options , cycle storage is required. For highway safety reasons, car parking and man oeuvring conditions are also required . 45. permitted development rights, it is possible for homeowners, in implementing these rights, to affect the character and appearance of the area. Due to the location of the site within the CNL , I consider this condition necessary. 46. I nstalling electric vehicle charge points in new homes now forms part of Building Control Regulations. It has not been explained why these regulations and controls do not satisfactorily deal with the request for a condition . As such, this suggested condition is considered unnecessary. 47. A condition on the residential curtilage has been requested. However, details are included in the plan's condition, and it is therefore not needed. Conclusion 48. For the reason set out above, the appeal is allowed. A Hickey INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 Schedule of conditions ( 1 - 16 ) 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: 03 - 001 A Location Plan 03 - 012 A Proposed site plan 03 - 002 Existing and proposed curtilage plan ( proposed reduced domestic curtilage) 45 - 011 - A1 Proposed site plan wide 4 5 - 013 - A1 Proposed roof plan 45 - 020 - A1 Proposed floor plan 03 - 015 Site s ection diagrams 45 - 030 A1 Proposed elevations : north and east 45 - 031 A1 Proposed elevations : south and west LAC _ 005 rev A Landscape section LAC_004_rev C Feb 2023 Landscape masterplan LAC_003_rev D Landscape Design 03 - 004 Boundaries Plan 3. No development (other than the necessary testing to ascertain the ground condition) shall take place until a detailed sustainable surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitt ed to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall be based on an assessment of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles as set out in the Technic al Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework. It shall also include calculations and demonstrate that the surface water generated by this development can be accommodated and disposed of without discharging onto the highway and without increasing f lood risk on or off - site. The drainage scheme shall also demonstrate that the silt and pollutants resulting from the site can be adequately managed to ensure there is no pollution risk to receiving waters. 4. No work s shall be carried out on site (including site clearance and demolition) until an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP) has been submitted in accordance with current British Standard 5837 and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Ground protection meas ures including protective fencing shall be erected or installed prior to the commencement of any works or development on the site including any works of demolition and shall conform to current British Standard 5837 specification guidance. The approved fenc ing and/or ground protection measures shall be retained and maintained until all building, engineering or other operations have been completed. No work shall be carried out or materials stored within the fenced or protected areas without prior written agre ement from the Local Planning Authority. The development thereafter shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details. The AMS & TPP shall include: Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 1.) Detailed plans showing location of the protective fencing including any additional gr ound protection whether temporary or permanent; 2.) Details as to proposed access into and out of the site; - root protection areas of retained trees; 4.) All phases and timing of the project, including phasing of demolition and construction operations, in relation to arboricultural matters and details of supervision by a qualified arboriculturist and details of site supervision; and 5.) Siting of machinery, work huts and contracto r parking; areas for the storage of materials and the siting of skips and working spaces. 5. No work shall be carried out on site (including site clearance and demolition) until a habitat management plan (HMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing b y the local planning authority. The content of the HMP shall include the following. a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed. b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management. c) Aims and objectives of management which will (without limitation) include the provision of biodiversity net gain within the Site as shown within the Biodiversity Gain Plan. d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives. e) Details of e cological buffer. f) Details of wildlife sensitive lighting should external lightening be proposed during operational phase of the development. g) Model specifications and locations of biodiversity enhancement features (a minimum of a bat box, bee hotel and bi rd box). h) Prescriptions for management actions. i) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a thirty - year period). j) Details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of the plan. k) Ong oing monitoring and remedial measures. The HMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long - term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. The plan shall be for no less than 30 years. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the HMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed, and i mplemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme. The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 6. No work shall be carried out on site (includi ng site clearance and demolition) until a 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. b) buffer. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (m ay be provided as a set of method statements). d) Measures to avoid and mitigate impacts to the SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest), priority habitat, local wildlife site and recognised nature reserve. e) Demonstrate how best practice will be used to min imise dust to ensure no pollution from demolition or construction adversely affect the SSSI f) Details of wildlife sensitive lighting should external lightening be proposed during construction phase of the development. g) The location and timing of sensitive wor ks to avoid harm to biodiversity features. h) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works. i) Responsible persons and lines of communication. j) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person. k) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs. The approved CEMP must be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approve d details. 7. No construction shall take place above slab level until a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The LEMP shall include a woodland management plan and a bio diversity management and monitoring plan which shall follow the recommendations of the Ecological Impact Assessment (non - EIA) dated October 2023 , the landscape and ecological management summary prepared by SEED dated 15/09/2023 , and shall be prepared in accordance with the Habitat Management Plan approved pursuant to condition 5 of this permission. The LEMP shall demonstrate that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details of the Landscape Masterplan dated May 2023 and the Landscape Developed Design LAC_003_Rev D and shall provide for native planting within the Ecological Buffer Zone indicated on 03 - 012 rev A. The LEMP shall also demonstrate that the development shall achieve a minimum net gain in biodiversity of 21% in accordance with the Biodiversity Net Gain report and metric dated September 2023. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details . 8. No development beyond site clearance shall take place until details of the proposed finished floor levels of all buildings and the finished ground levels of the site, in relation to existing site levels of surrounding property, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved levels. 9. No development above slab level shall commence until a schedule of all the materials to be used in the construction of all external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approve d in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 10. N o development shall take place above slab level until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and ap proved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall accord with the approved Landscape masterplan and include existing trees and/or hedgerows to be retained and/or removed accurately shown with root protection areas; schedules of plants noting species, plant supply sizes and proposed densities; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with tree, plant and grass establishment; and the implementation programme. Development shall be carried out in accorda nce with the approved details. If within a period of ten years from the date of the planting of any tree or shrub, that tree or shrub, or any tree and shrub planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed, dies, becomes severely damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees and shrubs of equivalent size, species and quantity. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the building or the completion of the development w hichever is the sooner or in accordance with the agreed programme of works . 11. No development shall take place above slab level until details of all boundary treatments including walls, fences, gates or other means of enclosure to be erected in or around the residential curtilage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter. 12. Prior to first occupation of the development hereby app roved secure bicycle storage facilities for the dwelling shall be provided and fully installed. The storage facilities shall be retained thereafter. 13. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted the car parking and manoeuvring area shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved drawings. The car parking area so provided shall be maintained and shall be used for no other purpose thereafter. 14. The development her e by approved shall be implemented in accordance with Appendix 7 of the bat activity survey (Elite Ecology, October 2023) identified within the agreed Ecological Impact Assessment (ecology by Design, October 2023) recommendation. Prior to occupation of the approved dwel ling a written statement to confirm the recommendations have be carried out will first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority . 15. The dwelling hereby permitted shall be constructed and fitted out so as not to exceed the optio nal water consumption standard of 110 litres per person per day, as set out in Approved Document G of the Building Regulations 2010 (as amended). 16. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Or der 2015 (or any Order revoking or re - enacting that Order, with or without modification), no development covered by Classes A, B and E of Part 1 and Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out without the specific grant of planning p ermission from the Local Planning Authority.⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
For similar reasons condition on hard and soft landscaping is also required. A condition on boundary treatments is also necessary for the character and appearance of the area and the residential amenities of nearby occupiers. 42. A condition f or a BNG Report and associated Biodiversity Metric was suggested by the Council. However, given that both have been submitted as part of the appeal process and details for BNG are also required as part of the Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, this condition would not be necessary or reasonable. In the interests of safeguarding protected species, ancient woodland and habitat conditions are also required. 43. Details of water consumption are necessary in the interest of reducing water consumption. Also, a condition is necessary for the submission of a surface water drainage scheme in the interests of sustainable drainage. 44. In the interests of parking and sustainable travel options , cycle storage is required. For highway safety reasons, car parking and man oeuvring Conclusion 48. For the reason set out above, the appeal is allowed. A Hickey
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3332515 (Maldon District Council) — 2024-05-02
📍 Maldon District Council PINS reference: 3332515 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 April 2024 by David Smith BA(Hons) DMS MRTI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/X1545/W/23/3332515 Bickleigh Mead, Loamy Hill Road, Tolleshunt Major, CM9 8LS The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr J King against the decision of Maldon District Council. The appli cation Ref is FUL/MAL/23/00127. The development proposed is for the construction of a replacement dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a replacement dwelling at Bickleigh Mead, Loamy Hill Road, Tolleshunt Major, CM9 8LS in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref FUL/MAL/23/00127, subject to the cond itions in the attached schedule. Applications for costs 2. The application for costs made by the appellant against the Council is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matter 3. The Council has advised that it is no longer able to defend two of the rea sons for refusal . These relat e to the alleged non - compliance with Policy H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and to the urbanising impact of the proposed development. Given the nature of the existing mobile home and the attached porch , the p roposal would accord with the policy on replacement dwellings. Its design would be in keeping with the character of the area and th at reason was inserted on the decision notice unintentionally. Main Issue 4. This is therefore whethe r a sequential test is required and whether the occupiers of the proposed replacement dwelling would be at risk of flooding. Reasons 5. maps show the appeal site to be located wit hin flood zone 3a. The modelling undertaken concludes that it is within flood zone 2. Either way , the proposed dwelling would be within an area with a medium or high probability of flooding. The National Planning Po licy Framework establishes that inappropriate development in such areas should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. Appeal Decision APP/X1545/W/23/3332515 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 6. As part of th is approach , a sequential test should be applied to avoid, where possible, flood risk to peop le and property and to manage any residual risk . This aims to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. Policy D5 of the Local Development Plan confirms that this test should be undertaken in accordance with national planning policy. 7. The Framework establishes that some minor development should not be subject to the sequential test but the examples given at footnote 60 do not include replacement buildings. Furthermore, this type of proposal is not included in the list of minor development in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on Flood risk and coastal change . This does include reference to dev elop ment that does not increase the size of buildings but in the context of alterations . T he proposal , on the other hand, is for a new building in a different location to what is existing. 8. The PPG also refers to taking a pragmatic approach for proposals involving comparatively small extensions to existing premises where it might be impractical to accommodate the addit ional space elsewhere. However, the proposal does not fall into that category. Furthermore, th at advice relates to the application of the sequential test b ut one has not been done. If the need for this test were always set aside because it would not allow an owner to redevelop an existing use , that would defeat the broad object ive of national policy which is to minimise the adverse consequences of flooding. 9. The application was validated without a request for a sequentia l test to be undertaken. Neither was one required for the previous application for a replacement dwelling . The reasons for refusing this scheme did not allude to the absence of a sequential test. Outline planning permission was given for a replacement d welling at Mill Cottage, Heybridge in flood zone 2 or 3 but without any mention of a sequential test in the officer report. However, whilst the requirement for a sequential test is set natio nal ly . 10. The precise circumstances of the appeal are not covered by Government policy or the associated guidance . Nevertheless , when judged against the Framework and the PPG , a sequential test is not excluded for cases involving replacement buildings. That said, the reality is that if the appeal were dismissed for that reason, a lawful dwelling would remain within an area at risk of flooding. Therefore, the actual consequences for future occupiers should be examined. 11. The proposal would have a slightly smaller footprint than the existing dwelling and associated storage units . The finished floor level would be 22.95m AOD . This is above the 1% annual probability flooding level including an allowance for climate change and therefore the property would be dry in this event. The ground floor would also be above the 0.1% annual probability level and therefore there would be safe refuge . The Flood Risk Assessment includes recommendations as to how occupiers could respond effectively during a flood event. The Environment Agency raise no objection and also confirm that compensatory storage is not required. 12. A building used as a dwelling by Annex 3 of the Framework . If the site is treated as falling within flood zone 3a then an exception test is required to comply with national policy. To that end, it has been shown that the development would be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users , without increasing flood risk elsewhere . Appeal Decision APP/X1545/W/23/3332515 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 vul to the community t hat outweighs the flood risk. Indeed, o verall flood risk would be reduced. This test is therefore passed. 13. The PPG indicates that e ven where a flood risk assessment shows the development can be made safe throughout its lifetime without increasing risk elsewhere, the sequential test still needs to be satisfied. That is not so here but this is a case where other considerations are at play. In particular, there is already a legitimate residential use on the land . The proposal would lead to a lessening in the risks from flooding because its superior construction compared to the mobile home , the raising of the floor level by 0.65m above ground level and the ability to put in place emergency plans. 14. In conclusion, the occupiers of the propo sed replacement dwelling would not be at risk of flooding . Furthermore, the existing risk s would be significantly reduced . This benefit outweighs the absence of a sequential test as required by a strict application of national policy and the consequent conflict with Policy D5 . Indeed, the proposal is acceptable in terms of the risk from flooding. O ther Matters 15. Other objections have been raised in representations, including those from the Parish Council. Any future applications to r eplace caravans in the area would be judged against Policy H 4 and the outcome of this appeal does not set a precedent in this respect. Although Bickleigh Lane is also a bridleway , the proposal would be unlikely to lead a significant increase in traffic gi ven that a single dwelling already exists at the site . Similarly, there would be no unacceptable impact on road safety at the junction with Loamy Hill Road. 16. The use of the lane for construction traffic would be short - lived as would any resulting disturban ce. The scale of development is not so large that it should be prevented due to the nature and surfacing of the access to the site. There is no technical evidence that mains water pressure would be adversely affected. The proposed dwelling would be sin gle storey and sufficiently removed from neighbouring properties to avoid a loss of privacy. Conditions 17. The plans should be confirmed in the interests of certainty. In view of this, there is no need to stipulate that the materials used should be as appro ved since they are shown on the drawings. The existing dwelling and storage building should be removed within a prescribed time period as the scheme has been considered as a replacement rather than as an additional dwelling. To ensure a satisfactory appe arance, details of the treatment of the external areas should be secured , including any landscaping. 18. Given the scale of the project , the separation from nearby properties and the provisions of other legislation, a full construction management plan is not required. However, to safeguard living conditions, the hours of construction should be limited. Details of the contents of an evacua tion plan should be agreed and made available to occupiers in order to minimise any residual risk from flooding. 19. According to the application form , surface water and foul sewage would be disposed of by connecting to the mains sewer. T he Environmental Heal th Appeal Decision APP/X1545/W/23/3332515 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 officer requested that informatives be attached to any permission but there is no indication that further drainage details are required . Passage along the bridleway is protected by other legislation and there is therefore no need for a planning conditi on to secure free and unobstructed access. Conclusion 20. Because of the lack of a sequential test, the proposal would not accord with the development plan. However, this conflict is outweighed by the fact that the safety of residential occupiers at the site would be greater than it is at present. Future residents would not be at risk of flooding . Material considerations therefore indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. So, fo r the reasons given , the p roposed replacement dwelling is acceptable and the appeal should succeed. David Smith INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/X1545/W/23/3332515 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings nos 22 - 0055 - 001 REV A , 22 - 0055 - 002 REV A, 22 - 0055 - 003 REV A and 22 - 0055 - 004. 3) No development above slab level shall take place until a scheme to demolish and completely remove t he mobile home and storage and stable building shown on drawing no 22 - 0055 - 004 from the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The mobile home and storage and stable building sha ll be demolished and completely removed from the site in accordance with the approved scheme and with a timetable previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 4) No development above slab level shall take place until a soft and hard landscapi ng scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include details of: a) Species of trees and shrubs to be planted, planting layouts with stock sizes and planting numbers/densities; b) A planting scheme implem entation programme, including ground protection and preparation, weed clearance, stock sizes, seeding rates, planting methods, mulching, plant protection, staking and/or other support; c) An aftercare and maintenance programme; d) Hard surfacing including materials , finishing and edgings ; and e) A timetable for implementation. The approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the timetable for implementation. Any trees or other plants approved as part of the landscaping scheme which die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size a nd species unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation. 5) Demolition or construction works shall only take place between 0730 and 1800 hours on weekdays; between 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and not at any time on Sun days or Public Holidays. 6) No development above slab level shall take place until an emergency evacuation plan in the event of a flood has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plan shall be based on the recommendat ions in the Flood Risk Assessment by Evans Rivers and Coastal July 2022 ( R ef 2558/RE/08 - 20/01 Revision A). The agreed evacuation plan shall be provided to the first occupiers of the dwelling herby permitted within one month of their occupation.⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Conclusion 20. Because of the lack of a sequential test, the proposal would not accord with the development plan. However, this conflict is outweighed by the fact that the safety of residential occupiers at the site would be greater than it is at present. Future residents would not be at risk of flooding . Material considerations therefore indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. So, fo r the reasons given , the p roposed replacement dwelling is acceptable and the appeal should succeed. David Smith
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3328363 (Cheshire East) — 2024-05-02
📍 Cheshire East PINS reference: 3328363 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 April 2024 by Hannah Ellison BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 nd M ay 20 24 Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/23/3328363 Land to the North West of Overdale, Oak Road, Mottram St Andrew SK10 4RA The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr David Fletcher against the decision of Chesh ire East Council. The application Ref is 22/4431M. The development proposed is the c onstruction of a detached single dwellinghouse with garden and parking. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the c onstruction of a detached single dwellinghouse with garden and parking at Land to the North West of Overdale, Oak Road, Mottram St Andrew SK10 4RA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/4431M, s ubject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matter s 2. I have taken the site address above from the planning decision notice as this is the most complete version provided. 3. Since the appeal was lodged, a revised version of the National Plann ing Policy Framework (the Framework) was published (December 2023). This does not materially change the planning policy context in respect of the main issue. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Reasons 5. Th is appeal concerns a plot of land front ing Oak Road. It is located within the settlement of Mottram St Andrew and is surrounded by residential properties. The appeal site falls within the Green Belt and, as Mottram St Andrew does not have a defined settlement boundary, is within the open countryside for planning policy purposes. 6. Policy PG3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010 - 2030 ( July 2017 ) (the CELPS) sets out that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate in the G reen Belt, with one exception to this being limited infilling in villages. This is consistent with the exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt at paragraph 154 e) of the Framework . Appeal Decision APP/R0660 /W/23/3328363 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 7. Similarly, C ELPS Policy PG6 restricts development to that which is essential for the uses appropriate to the rural area, with an exception being where there is the opportunity for limited infilling in villages and the infill of a small gap with one or two dwellings in an otherwise built - up frontage elsewhere. 8. The re is no dispute between the main parties that the appeal proposal would be limited in respect of the scale of the development and that the site is position ed between existing dwellings thus would reflect infill development . I have no reason to find otherw ise. 9. Policy PG10 of the Cheshire East Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (December 2022) (the SADPD) spatially defines certain settlements in the borough as infill villages . The appeal site does not fall within one of the identified settlements . In this circumstance, criterion 4 states that development proposals will not be considered to be limited infilling in villages when applying CELPS policies PG3 and PG6. As such, the p roposal conflicts with this policy and is contrary to the approach to limited infilling in villages as set out in the development plan. 10. C ase law 1 has however established that the boundary of a defined village m ay not be determinative for this purpose, rather it is a matter of planning judgement for the decision - maker having regard to the facts on the ground as well as any relevant policies . 11. Neither the development plan nor the Framework provide a definition of a village. I observed that Mottram St Andrew contains a church, primary school and village hall. There are no shops or other services. Nevertheless, the settlement is built - up with a considerable number of residential properties . The collection of buildings is dispersed over a large area. On passing through, it has a distinctive village character assisted largely by the many examples of traditional built form, narrow highways and mature landscaping. 12. O n the approach to the appeal site from the south there is a clear distinction between the countryside and the beginning of the built form in the settlement. The appeal site is a distinctive gap located within the built - up linear arrangement of built form along Oak Road leading towards the junction with P riest Lane. It is evidently within the village. 13. Based on my observations, the appeal site has a very clear visual and physical relationship with the village . I therefore find that the appeal site would appear as part of the village for the purposes of the - the - 14. Consequently , the proposal would accord with the relevant provisions of Polic ies PG3 and PG6 of the CELPS , along with the exception at paragraph 154 e) of the Framework and thus would not be inapprop riate development in the Green Belt . 15. W hilst the appeal site would not be within an infill village as defined by Policy PG10 and thus the proposal would conflict with the approach set out i n this policy, given my interpretation of the settlement on the ground I afford limited weight to this conflict. 1 Julian Wood v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Gravesham Borough Council [2015] EWHC Civ 195 Appeal Decision APP/R0660 /W/23/3328363 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 16. Given my findings there is n o need to go on to consider the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt or consider w hether v ery spe cial circumstances exist . Other Matter 17. I note and share t boundary fence as shown on the submitted plans . Nevertheless, t his matter can be effectively dealt with by way of appropriately worded condition s . Conditi ons 18. The Council provided a list of suggested conditions to be attached should the appeal be allowed. Having regard to the six tests set out in the Framework I have altered the wording of some of the suggested conditions where required , without affecting th eir overall intention . 19. I have attached the standard time limit and plans list conditions in the interest of certainty. In the interests of the rural character of the area I have amended the suggested materials condition so as to require details of the brickwork to be submitted , as this is not specified on the approved plans . 20. In the interests of biodiversity and the charact er and appearance o f the area , I have attached conditions relating to nesting birds and bats, the removal of vegetation and existing and proposed landscaping . Conclusion 21. The proposal accords with the development plan as a whole , thus the appeal should be a llowed. H Ellison INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/R0660 /W/23/3328363 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 Schedule of Conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall be g in not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 293.01 Revision A, 293.02 Revision C and 293.03 Revision D ( except in respect of the s outheast boundary fence ). 3. Prior to its installation, details of the brickwork shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Lo cal Planning Authority . The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4. No above ground development shall commence until a strategy for the incorporation of features to enhance the biodiversity value of the develop ment hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted strategy should include proposals for the provision of features for nesting birds and roosting bats (any external lighting should avoid direc t light spill upon bat roost features), brash/deadwood piles and native species planting. The approved details shall thereafter be implemented in full prior to first occupation of the development and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved de tails . 5. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted there shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the L ocal P lanning A uthority a scheme of landscaping. The scheme shall include details of hard landscaping, boundary treatments, planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with tree, shrub, hedge or grass establishment), schedules of plants noting species, plant sizes, the proposed numbers and densities , an impl ementation programme and indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land to be retained and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of development. 6. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of lands caping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted or the completion of the development , whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. 7. No removal of any vegetation shall take place between 1st March and 31st August in any year, unless a detailed survey has been carried out to check for nesting birds. Where nests are found in any hedgerow, tree or scrub or other habitat to be removed, a 4m exclusion zone shall be left around the nest until breeding is complete. Comple tion of nesting shall be confirmed by a suitably qualified person and a report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any further works within the exclusion zone take place. End of Schedule⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Given my findings there is n o need to go on to consider the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt or consider w hether v ery spe cial circumstances exist . Other Matter 17. I note and share t boundary fence as shown on the submitted plans . Nevertheless, t his matter can be effectively dealt with by way of appropriately worded condition s . Conditi ons 18. The Council provided a list of suggested conditions to be attached should the appeal be allowed. Having regard to the six tests set out in the Framework I have altered the wording of some of the suggested conditions where required , without affecting th eir overall intention . 19. I have attached the standard time limit and plans list conditions in the interest of certainty. In the interests of the rural character of the area I have amended the suggested materials condition so as to require details of the brickwork to be submitted , as this is not specified on the approved plans . 20. In the interests of biodiversity and the charact er and appearance o f the area , I have attached Conclusion 21. The proposal accords with the development plan as a whole , thus the appeal should be a llowed. H Ellis…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3323910 (Gedling Borough Council) — 2024-05-02
📍 Gedling Borough Council PINS reference: 3323910 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 March 2024 by S Pearce BA(Hons) MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/N3020/W/23/3323910 Ridgewood, Newstead Abbey Park , Nottingham Road, Ravenshead, Nottinghamshire NG15 8GD The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a grant of planning permission subject to conditions. The appeal is made by Mr Robert Smith against th e decision of Gedling Borough Council. The application Ref 2022/1242 was approved on 18 May 2023 and planning permission was granted subject to conditions. The development permitted is the demolition of existing outbuildings, corridor, conservatory and part of dwelling. Proposed rear single storey extension, front double storey entrance extension, alterations to the existing roof. Erection of new detached garage . The condition in dispute is No 8 which states that: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (and any order revoking, re - enacting or modifying that Order), other than development expressly authorised by this permis sion, there shall be no development under Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Order in respect of; Class A: The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse; Class B: The enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to it s roof; Class C: Any other alteration to the roof of a dwellinghouse; Class D: Porches; Class E: buildings etc. incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse; Class F: hard surfaces; nor shall means of enclosure be erected as outlined under schedule 2, Pa rt 2 of the Order; unless consent has firstly be granted in the form of a separate planning permission. The reason given for the condition is: To ensure that the openness of the Green Belt is respected and to comply with guidance within the NPPF (2021). Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 2022/1242 for the demolition of existing outbuildings, corridor, conservatory and part of dwelling. Proposed rear single storey extension, front double storey entrance extension, alterations to existing roof. Erection of new detached garage at Ridgewood, Newstead Abbey Park, Nottingham Road, Ravenshead, Nottinghamshire NG15 8GD granted on 18 May 2023 by Gedling Borough Council, is varied by deleting condition No 8 and substituting it with the following condition: 8) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (and any order revoking, re - enacting or modifying that Order), other than development expressly authorised by this permission, there shall be no development under Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Order in respect of; Class A: The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse; Class D: Porches; Class E: buildings etc. incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse; unless consent has firstly be en granted in the form of a separate planning permission. Appeal Decision APP/N3020/W/23/3323910 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Preliminary Matter s 2. Since the determination of this application, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was pu blished on 19 December 2023 and updated on 20 December 2023. Those parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not been amended. As a result, I consider that there is no requirement for me to seek further submissions on the Framework, and I am approach. Where I have referred to specific paragraphs of the Framework, the numbering used is that of the revised version. 3. At the time of my site visit works were being carried out . For clarity, I have considered the appeal based on the development applied for and the plans submitted with it . 4. The address on the application form is Newstead Abbey Park, Ridgewood. I have used the address on the appeal form in the banner heading above , as it is more accurate. Background and Main Issue 5. The Council state that the disputed condition was imposed as part of p lanning approval Ref 2022/1242 (the approved scheme) to ensure that the openness of the Green Belt is respected and to comply with the Framework . The appellant contends that the condition is not reasonable or necessary and therefore seeks to remove the condition . 6. The refore, the main issue is whether the dispute d condition is reasonable and necessary in the interests of protecting the openness of the Green Belt. Reasons 7. P aragraph 54 of the Framework states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there i s a clear justification to do so. The most recent version of the Planning Practice Guidance 1 (PPG) states that such a condition may not pass the tests of reasonableness or necessity, including in respect of small - scale domestic alterations, and the scope of such conditions needs to be precisely defined. 8. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) does not disting uish between land within or outside the Green Belt. As such, t here is no requiremen t to consider whether proposals that are permitted development are inappropriate development or the effect on openness. 9. Policy LPD 13 of the Gedling Borough Local Planning Document Part 2 Local Plan Adopted July 2018 (LP) states, among other things, that within the Green Belt planning permission will be granted for extensions or alterations to buildings provided the proposals do not result in the floorspace of the building being over 50% larger than when originally constructed or as it existed on 1 J uly 1948. 10. The Framework establishes that new buildings within the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate development. There are exceptions to this, including paragraph 1 54 c) which allows for the extension or alteration of a building 1 Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 017 Reference ID: 21a - 017 - 20190723 Appeal Decision APP/N3020/W/23/3323910 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Both LP Policy LPD 13 and the Framework require an assessment to be undertaken i n respect of the original building only . 11. Ridgewood is a detached dwelling , with several outbuildings , located within a large plot. Based on the evidence submitted, Ridgewood has previously been extended and is now substantially larger than the original bu ilding . 12. I t is common ground between the parties that the approved scheme would consolidate and reduce the built form within the appeal sit e , in comparison with the previously extended dwelling . While t here would be a notable reduction in the floorspace of Ridgew ood , as a result of the approved scheme , there would be a more minimal reduction in respect of the volume . However, t aken as a whole, the approved scheme would have a lesser impact upon the openness of the Green Belt , than compared with the extended form of Ridgew ood . The Council granted consent for the approved scheme on this basis. 13. Although the approved scheme would reduce the built form within the appeal site , it would , nevertheless, still result in a significant increase above the size of the original building . The floorspace of the approved scheme would be significantly over the 50% threshold stipulated by LP Policy LPD 13 and the volume of the original building would be substantially extended . This is clearly demonstrated within the evidence submitted , including the Green Belt Impact Assessment . 14. Turning to the disputed condition , t he Council imposed this to ensure the openness of the Green Belt was preserved , given that the approved scheme signific antly exceeded the floorspace threshold within LP Policy LPD 13. 15. Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, D and E of the GPDO , allows for work t o be carried out to a dwellinghouse , including the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse , porches and buildings etc incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse . 16. The size of the appeal site lends itself to accommodating potentially sizeable extensions and ancillary buildings of meaningful footprint an d volume . When combined with the approved scheme, these have the potential to constitute disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building . In t his regard, there is clear justification for the removal of these specific Classes. Th erefore, i t is reasonable and necessary for the condition to restrict permitted development rights in relation to Class es A, D and E of the Order, to enable the Council to consider any such future proposals upon the Green Belt . 17. The rights that fall within Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes B and C relate to additions etc to the roof of a dwellinghouse and any other alteration to the roof of a dwellinghouse. W hile noting the Green Belt location and future extension s adding to the size of Ridgewood , the approved scheme has a flat roof . Having regard to this and the criteria within Classes B and C , any future work that could be carried out would be const rained . As such , it was onerous to apply restrictions under these C lasses. 18. The disputed condition also seeks to restrict the provision of hard surfaces incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse , as detailed under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class F , and means of enclosure , detailed within Schedule 2, Part 2 . The Appeal Decision APP/N3020/W/23/3323910 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 works to extend Ridgewood, in light of the approved scheme and the floorspace restriction contained within LP Policy LPD 13 . W orks in respect of hard surfaces and means of enclosure would not add to the floor space of the original dwelling . In view of this , and g iven the Framework, nor the GPDO , place any restrictions on permitted development within the Green Belt, I am not persuaded that the removal of rights in respect of these matters is reasonable or necess ary. 19. An appeal decision 2 and planning decision 3 have been drawn to my attention. While the se schemes were also within the Green Belt, the appeal decision relates to the conversion of a barn to a dwelling and the planning decision comprise s an outline planning application for up to 14 new dwellings . As such, these cases are not directly comparable. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the circumstances of these cases ar e similar to the appeal scheme such that it would warrant me reaching a diff erent conclusion on the disputed condition in this case. In any case, I have considered the appeal on its own merits . 20. Notwithstanding my findings in respect of whether the disputed condition is reasonable or necessary, I find that it is drafted in a precise manner and is enforceable. 21. For the above reasons , the disputed condition is reasonable and necessary in the interest s of protecting the openness of the Green Belt insofar as it relates to enlargements and alterations that can be carried out under Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, D and E of the GPDO . However, it is not reasonable and necessary insofar as it relates to addi tions and alterations to the roof, the provision of hard surfaces and means of enclosure. Therefore, the variation of the condition, by omitting reference to Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes B, C and F and Schedule 2, Part 2 would ensure compliance with LP Poli cy LPD 13 and with the Framework. Collectively, these seek, among other things, to protect the openness of the Green Belt. Other matters 22. The appellant alleges that imposing a condition restricting certain permitted development rights would be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, specifically Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 , which relate to the r ight to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of their possessi ons. However, these are qualified rights and interference with them in this instance, through varying the planning permission and imposing a revised condition, would accord with the law and be in pursuance of a well - established and legitimate aim, the prot ection of the Green Belt. 23. It has been highlighted that the disputed condition rest ricts the painting of the outside walls of a building . However, s uch works fall within Schedule 2, Part 2, Class C of the GPDO , which is not referenced within the disputed co ndition . 24. W hile t here is dispute between the parties whether the appeal site falls within a Site of Interest for Nature Conservation , this i s not relevant to the main issue. 2 Appeal decision reference APP/W4223/W/15/3100 603 3 Council planning reference 2016/0306 Appeal Decision APP/N3020/W/23/3323910 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 Conclusion 25. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. The planning permission is varied by deleting the disputed condition and substituting it with a revised condition . S Pearce INSPECTOR⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Collectively, these seek, among other things, to protect the openness of the Green Belt. Other matters 22. The appellant alleges that imposing a condition restricting certain permitted development rights would be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, specifically Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 , which relate to the r ight to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of their possessi ons. However, these are qualified rights and interference with them in this instance, through varying the planning permission and imposing a revised condition, would accord with the law and be in pursuance of a well - established and legitimate aim, the prot ection of the Green Belt. 23. It has been highlighted that the disputed condition rest ricts the painting of the outside walls of a building . However, s uch works fall within Schedule 2, Part 2, Class C of the GPDO , which is not referenced within the disputed co ndition . 24. W hile t here is dispute between the parties whether the appeal site falls within a Site of Interest for Nature Conservation , this i s not relevant to the main issue. 2 Appeal decision reference APP/W4223/W/15/3100 603 3 Council planni…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3337187 (Reigate and Banstead Borough Council) — 2024-05-01
📍 Reigate and Banstead Borough Council LPA code: E07000211 PINS reference: 3337187 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - i nspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2024 by Lynne Evans BA MA MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/ L3625/D/24/3337187 Nutley Dean Farm, Small s Hill Road, Horley RH6 0HR 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 Julie Baker against the decision of Reigate & Banstead Borough Council. The application Ref : 23/00429/HHOLD dated 28 February 2023 , was refused by notice dated 20 December 2023 . The development proposed is introduction of 3 No. Heritage style Velux windows into the existing roof slope on Plot 7 dwelling on the site. 2 No. to sit a bove the existing gallery space and 1 No. to sit above the existing bedroom to offer better natural ventilation to the spaces. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the introduction of 3 No. Heritage style Velux windows into the existing roof slope on Plot 7 dwelling on the site ; 2 No. to sit above the existing gallery space and 1 No. to sit above the existing bedroom to offer better natural ventilation to the spaces at 7 Nutley Dean Farm, Smalls Hill Road, Horley RH6 0HR in accordance with the terms of the application, 23/00429/HHOLD dated 28 February 2023 , subject to the following condition s: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) T he development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: NUTL1 - CBLS - 00 00 DR A 0077 S2 P 0 1 ; NUTL1 - CBLS - 00 - ZZ - DR - A - 3010 A1 P 0 1; NUTL1 - CBLS - 00 - ZZ - DR - A - 3605 S4 P 0 1. Preliminary Matters 2. The appeal site falls withi n the Green Belt. Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) sets out that the construction of new buildings in the green belt is inappropriate except for a limited number of exceptions including the extension or alteration of a bu ilding providing that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Appeal Decision APP/L3625/D/24/3337187 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 3. The Council has referred to Policy NHE5 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019 (DM Plan) which sets out a criter ia based approach to development within the Green Belt, including at criterion d that the extensions would not be disproportionate to the original building taking into account of a range of factors, including any additional floor area, massing and bulk, he ight and visual prominence. 4. The proposal would add roof lights to the existing roof slope and would not therefore add floorspace or bulk, height or massing to the existing building nor increase visual prominence. There would also be no impact on openness which is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt. From my site visit and all the information before me I am satisfied that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that there would be no conflict with the Fra mework or Policy NHE5 of the DM Plan in this regard . 5. The Council has also satisfied itself that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and this was not raised as a reason for refusal. Main Issue 6. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the local area and the setting of the locally listed building . Reasons 7. The appeal property is part of a recent residential courtyard development of some 14 dwell ings accessed via a private road and bridleway off Smalls Hill Road within the countryside and within the Green Belt. The proposal relates to the addition of three velux windows to the rear roof slope in addition to the one existing velux window which is a lready in place on that same roof slope. 8. The rear roof slope as existing is seen from the private drive and bridleway and the three additional roof lights would also be visible. However, and contrary to hat there are a number of roof lights as well as photovoltaic panels on the roof slopes across the courtyard development, including the one roof light already in place at the appeal property in the rear roof slope. The three additional roof lights would be sited to line up with the existing roof light and this would follow a similar pattern to that seen on some of the other buildings. I therefore consider that the proposed roof lights would respect the character and appearance of the existing dwelling as we ll as the wider courtyard development and its countryside setting. 9. The Council has specifically referenced its Barn and Farm Conversion SPD (SPD) which advises against the use of roof lights; however , this SPD seems to be primarily directed to the convers ion of existing farmyard barns, although also extending to new development in farmyard settings. Whilst I do not have the full planning history in front of me, and the Council has referred to the whole site being a former farm site, the information provide d on the planning history indicates that there were previously industrial buildings on the site rather than farmyard barns. Furthermore, I have found that the roof lights are found within the existing development and the proposal would respect the characte r and appearance of the existing dwelling and of the local area. Appeal Decision APP/L3625/D/24/3337187 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 10. The Council has also referred to the courtyard development being within the grounds of a locally listed building, Nutley Dean Farmhouse , although no further information has been provided in t his regard . I am satisfied that given the modest nature of the proposal relating to one of the dwellings in the courtyard complex and the distance to the locally listed building there would be no harm to the setting of that building. 11. I am therefore satisfi ed that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of the existing building and of the local area, including the setting of the locally listed building. There would be no conflict with policies NHE9 and DES1 of the DM Plan as well as the Frame work and in particular Sections 12 and 16 all of which seek for new development to be of a high standard of design which respects the local context and the setting of heritage assets. 12. The proposal would not comply with the detailed guidance in the SPD in respect of roof lights . However, I have found that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of both the existing house and the local area. In the particular circumstances of this case, and for the reasons set out above, I consider that ther e would be justification for an exception to be made to these parts of the SPD. Other Considerations 13. the number of roof lights , but my decision is based solely on the planning merits of the proposal. Conditions 14. In terms of conditions, as well as the standard time limit condition, materials should match the existing to respect the character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area, and the approved plans should be listed for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of good planning. Conclusion 15. For the reason s given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that this appeal should be allowed. L J Evans INSPECTOR⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
11. I am therefore satisfi ed that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of the existing building and of the local area, including the setting of the locally listed building. There would be no conflict with policies NHE9 and DES1 of the DM Plan as well as the Frame work and in particular Sections 12 and 16 all of which seek for new development to be of a high standard of design which respects the local context and the setting of heritage assets. 12. The proposal would not comply with the detailed guidance in the SPD in respect of roof lights . However, I have found that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of both the existing house and the local area. In the particular circumstances of this case, and for the reasons set out above, I consider that ther e would be justification for an exception to be made to these parts of the SPD. Other Considerations 13. the number of roof lights , but my decision is based solely on the planning merits of the proposal. Conditions 14. In terms of Conclusion 15. For the reason s given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that this appeal should be allowed. L J Evans
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3328322 (Somerset Council) — 2024-03-18
📍 Somerset Council PINS reference: 3328322 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - i nspectorate Appeal Decision Inquiry Held on 23 - 25 January 2024 Site visit made on 2 5 January 2024 by Stephen Wilkinson BA BPl DIP LA MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 18/03/20 24 Appeal Ref: APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 Land north of Mudford Road, Yeovil, Somerset Grid Ref: 356250, 118369 The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission. The appeal is made by Yeovil LVA LLP (Land Value Alliance) against Somerset Council. The application Ref : 22/00695/OUT , is dated 15 Ma rch 2022. The development proposed is erection of up to 252 dwellings, public open space (including community orchard and village green ) , woodland planting, ecological buffers, sustainable drainage systems, a biodiverse wetland habitat and other ancillary works . All matters reserved except fo r access. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for the erection of up to 252 dwellings, public open space (including community orchard and village green), woodland planting, ecological buffers, sustainable drainage s ystems, a biodiverse wetland habitat and other ancillary works. All matters reserved except for access subject to the conditions included in the schedule to this dec i sion . Procedural Matters 2. Since the application was submitted South Somerset Council was merged with three surrounding distri c ts to form Somerset Council, a U n i ta ry Authority which commenced operation on 1 st April 2023. Th is decision is based on the policies of the South Somerset Local Plan 2 006 - 28 adopted 2015. 3. The scheme is submitted in ou tline with all matters reserved apart from access. A parameter plan ( 190812 L 02 Rev B ) was submitted with the appeal. I have treat ed this as illustrative only. 4. Given the size of the proposed development the appeal was accompanied by an Environmental Statement as required by Regulation 5(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. 5. Between the time that the Council resolved to oppose the scheme and the start of the appeal process a revised access strategy (23037/PHL/01 Rev E) was agree d between the parties. The changes between the previous strategy considered by the Council and th at before me were present ed at the Inquiry. Given the small - scale nature of the suggested changes , I am sat i sfied that no Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 parties have been prejudiced by this late revision and accordingly my decision is made on this . 6. Following publication of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) on 20 December 2023 I wrote to the main parties for comment. Co mments received have been incorporated int o this decision. 7. The appeal was accompanied by a draft S106 Agr eement. A completed Agreem en t dated 15 February was received following the closure of the Inquiry ; this is referred to later. 8. Finally, t here are a numb er of designated heritage assets surrounding the boundaries of the appeal site. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a statutory duty on decision makers, to have special regard to the desirability of prese rving listed buildings or their setting. Accordingly, I have assessed the impact of the appeal scheme on these buildings and structures later in this decision. Main Issue 9. The Council originally suggested three putative reasons for refusal of the applicat ion which included insufficient information on archaeology of the site , insufficient detail in re s p e ct of the infrast r u c ture required to support the application and the effects of the scheme on the landscape character and appearance of the area . 10. The Council agreed, in advance of the Inquiry that archaeology could be addressed by suggested conditions and that infrastru c ture by a completed S 1 06 Agreement . 11. Accordingly, the outstanding main issue is : The effect of the proposed scheme on the landscape character and appearance of the area . Reasons Landscape character and appearance Landscape effects 12. The appeal site lies on the northern edge of Yeovil and extend s north of Mudford Road towards S ock Lane . Ribbon development on both side s of Mudford Road mark the top of an escarpment above the site . T he site compris es three fields of around 25 ha surrounded by far mland . Yeovil Without sewerage treatment works lies by the northwestern corner of the site . 13. The appeal site does not lie in a v alued landscape as defined by Paragraph 1 80 a) of the Framework. The Coun cil recognise that it has value related to its undulating and undeveloped nature which allows views north from Mudford Road . In contrast the appellant, through the application of adopted guidance 1 identify that the site has a medium value . 14. T he value of the site is derived from its openness with its natural heritage derived from the location of the goyle (a local term for a steep sided wooded valley ) along part of its western edge and a small group of protected trees 1 Landscape Technical Note 02/21 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 towards the southern edge of the site . The absence of footpaths through the site result in a low recreational value and it is not covered by any nature conservation objectives nor does it have any cul t u ral associations . Whilst the northern edge is relatively tranquil t raffic noise and the presence of dwellings along Mudford Road and Stone Lane are experienced across the southern and central parts of the site . For these reasons , I find that the site has a medium value. 15. The site lies in NCA 140 2 , Yeovil Scarplands , characterised as a predomina n t l y rural area which comprises ridges and steep scar p s separating clay vales . These feat u res are identified in the LCA 2 3 Northern Esca r pment Foothills included in the Yeovil Peripheral Landscape S tudy 4 (YPLS) . 16. Whils t the YPLS does not strictly follow the GLVIA 3 5 guidance it is an important material consideration given its assessment of landscape capacity to sustain development. This identifi es the site as lying within LCA2a , an area of high sensitivity to change due to its rural character . However, the study recognises that within LCA2a , in areas where field boundaries and hedgerow trees have been removed as in the appeal site , there is a m edium sensitivity to change . This was agreed by the Council despite their written evidence to the contrary 6 . 17. T he escarpment which in part follows the edge of Mudford Road is not consistent in form with varying levels of steepness and orientation. The site includ es a moderate s lope from around 82metres AoD by Mudford Road to 45met res AoD at its northern edge ; a distance of around 830metres . T his contrasts with the steepness of the slope on the site lying immediately to the west . T he app eal s ite faces outwards towards the open rural character of the Yeo Valley . 18. The parameter plan submitted with t he appeal identifies 252 dwellings located across the site , with a village green on its southern edge by Mudford Road with its northern part used for recreation including for a LEAP 7 , MUGA 8 and orchard with a cascading water feature which would act a s a SUDS 9 . The appeal scheme would involve the removal of a rou nd 180metres of hedgerow from across the site. 19. The appeal scheme would require the creation of development platforms requiring areas of cut and fill. Whilst around 40 % of the appeal site would be occupied by built development would include the MUGA , LEAP and SUDS . The se features would, however , be clearly manmade structures resulting in landscape changes which would be permanent and irreversible . 20. D espite the scale of change resulting from the appeal scheme , the proposed areas of housing would be located away from the steepest slopes lying on the western side of the site where the land falls away to the goyle . Existing w oodland would be extended along the western edge and the proposed areas 2 National Character Area 3 Local Character Area 4 CD3.4a 2008 5 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment , Landscape Institute and Inst it ute for OF Environmental Management and Assessment 6 Mr Potterton XX 7 Local Equipped Area of Play 8 Multi U s e Games Area 9 Sustainable Drainage System Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 o f housing would be parti al ly contained by existing hedgerows, a majority which would be retained and which would be enhanced as part of the mitigation strategy. The net t effect of these changes is that despite its scale the scheme would result in only moderate adverse impacts on the site . 21. Further m ore , given th e comparative size of the appeal site with the NCA in which it lies, there would be n egligible impacts on it and only limited adverse impacts on the Yeo Valley to the north . There would, h owe ver, be moderate adverse impacts on the land to its east and west given the high landscape sensitivity of these two areas . T his could partially be addressed through the proposed mitigation. Visual effects 22. The main parties agreed a set of viewpoints and visual receptors from around the site which were shared on the site visit. The Zone of Theoretical visibility (ZTV) extends to a maximum distance of around 4km to the north of the site but in other directio ns is drawn tightly . This reflects t he natural changes in topography across the area which are important in exposing the receptor to a range of different views of the site. 23. The proposed development as suggested by the parameter plan would include 252 dwe llings located across the site as either houses or apartment b uildings of between 2 - 2.5 storey height (8.5 - 10metres ri d ge height ). The assessment of the vis ual impacts of the scheme was anticipated at a period of fifteen years after completion of the schem e when the proposed landscape mitigation would have started to have greater effect. 24. The parties differ on the significance of effects f or t he occupie r s of those residential properties on Mudford Road which directly face the site . T h e Council identify major adverse effects whereas the appellant consider the se would b e moderate adverse . Given th e fall in levels within the site away from Mudford Road and the suggested mitigation included in the parameter plan in the form of the and additional planting the visual effects would be moderate to major adverse. 25. T he existing hedge along the edge of the footway on Mudford Road varies in height. T he appeal schem e would result in minor adverse effects for pedestrians along that part of the footway close to the junction with Lyde Road . 26. From the residential properties along Mudford Road , the appeal scheme would still allow an appreciation of the wider landscape acro ss the Yeo Valley . This contrasts with the visual impact of frontage development of seven dwellings at Combe Street Lane, Yeovil 10 which was dismissed on appeal because it would have prevent ed an appreciation of the openness of the countryside beyond. In contrast , d espite the marked difference in size between that scheme , the appeal scheme would not prevent appreciat i on of the landscape to the north from the Mudford Road properties . 27. T he site was not viewed from the rear of the residential properties along Stone Lane . The occupiers of these properties, as sensitive receptors , would experience moderate adver se effects . The effects of the scheme are mode rated by the intervening fields and the 10 APP/R3325/W/20/3256703 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 proposed mitigation involving an extension of existing woodland on the east side of the goyle . 28. Given that both Stone Lane and Sock Lane form part of the Monarch s Way , a designated footpath from Worcester via Bristol and Yeovil to Shoreham , I accord walkers a high level of sensitivity. However , in many instances along both these l ane s , views of the site are limited due to either local topography or the height of hedgerows which lie along the route . Th e selected viewpoints over gates and openings represent an exception to the prevailin g kinetic experience of the footpath user . 29. For example, V Pt5 is a gap in the line of houses a t the southern part of Stone Lane. Whilst the southern part of the site c an be viewed this would be only a Sign i ficantly the housing on Mudford Road would in part frame the views of the site at this point and reduce the impact of the appeal scheme . 30. This is a similar relationship to that of the proposed housing scheme at Tintinhull 11 where the existing housing along Thorne Lane on the scarp edge was identified as bei n g dominant. Similarly , t he existing properties on Mudford Road would have the same physic al relationship to the housing proposed for the appeal site. Accordingly, t he effects would be low adverse. 31. In contrast to VPt5 , views from VPt6 located at the end of housing on Stone Lane allow clear views over the central part of the site. Despite the e xtent of views from this VPt the effects would be moderate advers e for walkers given the distance from the lane to the site . 32. V Pt 7 by the access to Stone Farm allows views of the site. However, these are more limited than at VPt6 given that the group of properties surrounding Stone Farm partially block views. For this reason, there would be low adverse effects. 33. VPt8 lies around 150 metres further north with views directly to wards the site. However due to the distance involved , the effects for walkers would be minor adverse. In contrast VPt9 is located be yond the northern edge of the site on S ock Lane by the entrance to the sewerage treatment works, but due to the local topography , the site would not be readily visible resulting in low adverse t o negligible effects. 34. VPt10 located towards the northern end of the ZTV affords a broader view to the site s southern edge. However , t he bulk of the appeal scheme would be hidden by the fol d s in the topography resulting in low adverse - negligible effects . V P t11 located on Ashington Lane would allow views north towards the appeal site which would appear as part of a distan t panorama from where there would be broken views of the proposed housing . The effects would be low adverse. 35. VPt 12 by Sock Cottages looks directly south towards the site enabling views of a large part of the appeal scheme. Its orientation limits the impacts of exi s ting development along Mudford Road on the appeal scheme. This result s in moderate adverse effects for the walker . 36. VPt13 l i es on Sock Hill . F r om this point parts of the site can be seen but framed by the existing properties along Mudford Road which due to their height 11 CD6.6 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 would still be the dominant element in the landscape at this point . This contrasts with the Frome appeal decision where there was no existing development. T he significance of effects from this point would be low adverse. 37. VPt14 lies at the southern end of Sock Lane from where parts of the schem e would be visible. However due to the intervening distance the effects would be low adverse. VPt15 located to the east of the ZTV on Drovers Way which also , allows clear views of the northern and central sections of the proposed scheme . Despite the intervening distance between this viewpoint and the si te , the appeal scheme would be clear ly visible on the approach to Yeovil resulting in moderate adverse effects . 38. From VPts 1 6 and 17 located on the southern edge of Mudford Lane there would be clear views of the northern secti o n of the appeal scheme for drivers and their passengers travelling west wards . The effects from here would be low adverse given the ir kinetic experience , the intervening distance and existing trees . 39. The site at Marston Lane, Frome 12 can be distinguished from the scheme before m e as that site included a more intimate f ield pattern . T here would have been a sig nif i ca nt loss of hedgerows and the proposed housing would have compromise d the ridgeline conflicting with specific policies aimed to prevent skyline development. The appeal scheme before me is significantly different with a different policy context informed to some extent by the outline scheme included in the allocated site at Y V2 13 to the east of the site. Although located in a different Landscape Character Area it presents a new context for assertion that the appeal scheme would represent an isolated f inger of development extending down the escarpment. 40. In summary , I find that the greatest impacts would be experienced by occupiers of those residential properties directly facing the site with lesser effects being experienced by footway users on Mudford R oad. The effects would be limited for walkers Way due to the undulating topography and tall hedgerows which restrict views. In several instances the existing properties along Mudford Road and Stone Lane provide which furt her reduces the impacts of the appeal scheme . Conclusions on Landscape Character and Appearance 41. The Council in its putative reason for refusal identifies a specific conflict with Policies SD1 and EQ2. 42. W hil s t Policy SD1 re - iterates t he statutory basis of planning decisions and the presumption in favour of sustain a ble development P olicy EQ2 requires that local distinc t iveness is to be respected with regard to local context and that landscape character should be preserved and e nhanced. 43. The form of development suggested by the parameter plans would adversely impact on the undeveloped character of the site . These matters could not be fully mitigated . There would be adverse visual effects for the occupiers of residential properties directly overlooking the site but only limited adverse visual impacts for walkers along Monarch Way. 12 APP/Q3305/W/22/3306827 13 ID 3 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 44. For these reasons, I conclude that overall, the appeal scheme would have moderate adverse lands cape effects with limited visual effects but would conflict with Policy EQ2 . Other Matters Somerset Moor and Levels Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar 45. Under Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) as co mpetent authority I am required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment of the development on the basis of its Likely Significant Effects on the Somerset Moors and Ramsar /SPA . 46. The Ramsar /SPA is suffering from excess concentrations of phosphates leading to eutrophication which in turn suppresses the ability of invertebrates and plant life to grow . Natural England require that development with i n the catchment of the Ramsar /SPA which will be served by a wastewater system must demonstrate nutrient n eutrality in line with its published guidance 14 . In response to these concerns the appeal sche me includes a treatment wetland designed as six basins acting as cascading wetlands referred to above which would be located at the northwest edge of the site. 47. This is designed to take the flo w from a small tributary of Oakley Brook which runs along the northwestern edge of the site which w ould be treated by the scheme s SUDS through natural processes including sedimentation and absorption from aquatic plants and then returned to the watercourse. In tu rn this would flow into the Ramsar/SPA as a nutrient free water. Even with the application o of eighty percent , the sche me would produce sufficient mitigation of 24.04kg/pa to offset the 16.69 kg /pa of phosphates per annum anticipated as likely to be generated by the scheme. T here would be an excess of what is required as mitigation of 7.35kg/pa produced by the proposed SUDS scheme. 48. T he proposed measures would mitigate the appeal scheme, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, so that there would be no adverse effect upon the integrity of the Ramsar/SPA. The schem e was developed in collaboration with N atural Engla nd who have confirmed that they are sati s f i ed with the proposed form of mitigation. 49. T he mitigation would be secured and managed by covenants included in the S 106 Agreement. These are consistent with Policy EQ4. 50. I am satisfied that each of these covenants fall within the provisions of Regulation 122 (2) of the CIL Regulations and Paragraph 57 of the Framework. Listed buildings and structures 51. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a statutory duty on decision makers, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting. The Framework 52. ge Assets, Planning Note 3) advises that the setting itself is not a heritage asset. Its importance lies in 14 CD8.1 Nutrient Neutrality Advice 16 March 2022 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset or the ability to appreciate that significance. 53. The re are several listed buildings and a stretch of highway ide n tified by the Turnpike Trusts and a listed milestone located beyond the boundaries of the appeal site. 54. Stone Farm dates from the nineteenth century and is part of a group of historic farm buildings located around 250metres to the west of the appeal site . It has a predominantly rural setting derived from the fields which exten d from the farmhouse to the western side of the goyle and the appeal s ite which lies beyond the goyle . This rural setting is limited in extent by the neighbouring housing on Mudford Road and Stone Lane . 55. The appeal scheme would result in the loss of part of the buil d ing s historic ru r al setting although h arm to its setting would be in part mitigated by the existing tree belt which forms the southern part of the goyle and which it is proposed w ould be enhanced . In terms of the Framework the harm arising would be at the lower end of less than substantial . 56. Sock Hill Cottages , located on Sock Lane are Grade II listed and date from the mid nineteenth century. The y lie in a rel a tively isolated location around 150metres from the appeal site . T he intervening topography mean s that intervisibility between the appeal site and the cottages is limited . Accor dingly, the appeal schem e would not undermine the significan ce of these cottages. 57. Several Grade II listed cottages lie to the north of the appeal site. Given a combination of distance, orientation and t he lack of functional connection t o the appeal site there would be no harm to their setting s ari si ng from the appeal scheme . 58. There is a section of Mudford Road/Mudf o rd Lane extending to the east which under the Yeovil Trust in 1753. The appeal scheme would partially develop its rural setting. However , the effect of these changes would be limited in scale and the degree of harm would be at the lower end of less than substantial. 59. A listed milestone lying due east of the appeal site, dat es from the time parts of Mud ford Road and Mudford Lane were a designated Turnpike. This compris es a h stone pillar with shaped iron plaque with a height of around 0.75 metres . Its significance is its vernacular form and historic siting in providing a way - marking function . Given that the route it relates to would be unaltered, and that the proposed development would not obstruct the functional use of the milestone or alter its rural setting the sche me would not be harmful to this designated heritage asset. 60. The site lies aro und 20km from Glastonbury Tor which is just discernible from within the site on a clear day. Given the distance involved and the size of the appeal site the appeal scheme would not impact on the setting of this historic structure. 61. I am satisfied that these buildings and structure s do not have any direct historical relationship with the appeal site but th at harm would aris e to the setting of Stone Farm an d the section of Mudford Lane which had been turnpiked but this would be at the lower end of the scale . The extent of harm requires further consideration against the public benefits arising from appeal Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 scheme as part of the heritage balance required by Para graph 208 of the Framework . This is considered later in this decision. Infrastructure 62. Interested parties expressed concern over the impact of the proposed scheme on social infrastructure including schools and health facilities. The Communit y Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 and paragraph 57 of the Framework set a number of tests for planning obligations: they must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, be directly related to the development, and be fairl y and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. 63. The completed S106 requires that 35% of the dwellings proposed are secured as affordable housing units local housing needs ; this includes prov ision for First Homes. This provision complies with Policy H3. 64. Other covenants in favour of the Council include the designation of public open space included in the LEAP and MUGA with trigger points for their imple men tation relating to the occupation of h ousing within the scheme. These provisions comply with Policy HW1. 65. The proposed highways works included i n the A ccess S trategy (23037/PHL/01 Rev E) include the provision of controlled and uncontrolled crossing points on Mudford Road and Lyde Road with ext ension s of the footwa ys . These provisions broadly adhere to Policies TA3, TA4 and TA5 which require new development to enable sustainable travel options. 66. The S106 Agreement includes covenants in favour of the Heath Authority of ?428 per dwelling required to increase the capacity of local surgeries. The figures used by the Health Authority are included in formula and I am satisfied provide a rational for the suggested funding package included in the S106 Agreement. This accords with Policy SS6. 67. Other covena nts in favour of the Council include financial contributions of ?721.18 per dwelling towards an off site changing room and ?394.52 per dwelling towards off site playing pitches. Covenants require commuted sums towards maintenance costs of changing rooms (? 239.47 and ?58.02 per dwelling towards playing pitches and changing rooms respectively). A further ?61.62 is to be allocated towards youth facilities. These requirements reflect the anticipated number of children likely to be future residents of the appea l scheme and are supported by Policy HW1. 68. Educational covenants in favour of the Council include a contribution to support the likely single child with special education needs of ?101, 216. This would accord with Policy SS6 of the Local Plan. Other covenants in favour of the Council relate to a series of obligations designed to support sustainable travel options. These include a payment of ?3,000 for a t ravel plan fee for monitoring purposes and ?63,000 for safeguarding measures in line with its SPG 15 . These measures are consistent with Policy TA5. 15 Supplementary Planning Guidance Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 69. Other non - financial measures include the implementation of a SUDS in accordance with an agreed specification and maintenance scheme. This would be in line with a Policy EQ1. 70. The S106 Agreement includes a series of obligation regarding measures to mitigate for the harmful effects of phosphates generated by residential development on the Somerset Moors and Levels Ramsar and SPA arising from the appeal scheme. I address this matter in detail in the following section and I am satisfied that these measures are supported by EQ4 of the Local Plan. 71. The S106 includes the provision of infrastructure, which is necess ary , directly required and fairly and reasonably related in scale to this development . I am satisfied that each of these covenants fall within the provisions of Regulation 122 (2) of the CIL Regulations and Paragraph 57 of the Framework. Planning balance T he Development Plan 72. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 73. B oth main parties acknowledge that there is an undersupply of housing land. In these circumstances there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development as defined by the Framework. The test included in Paragraph 11d)ii. of the Framework applies to this case and requires that any adverse i mpacts of the appeal scheme would have to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. 74. T he fact that policies are deemed as out of date does not mean that they carry no weight. To carry weight policies must be consistent with the Framework, as e xplained in Paragraph 2 25 , which amongst other things, states that the closer that local policies are to those in the Framework, the greater weight that may be given to them. As such it is perfectly possible for policies which are deemed out of date by rea son of an inadequate land supply to still carry significant weight. 75. The single putative reason for refusal that remains between the parties identifies conflict with P olicies SS1, SS5, SD 1, YV 1, YV2 and EQ2. I regard these as the most important policies for the determination of this appeal. 76. These p olicies are inter - related , with Policy SD1 broadly neutral in scope as it reit erates S38 (6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 in how planning decisions sh ould be taken. Policy SS1 direct s housing de v elopment towards Yeovil as the main settlement. Policy S S5 a mplifies Policy SS1 by directing housing to within the urban framework of the town an d towards two Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUE s ) . Policy YV1 amplifies th ese policies directing 5 , 876 dwellings to within urban framework and 1 , 565 dwellings towards the SUEs . 77. In directing development to Yeovil or its planned extensions these policies are co nsistent with the policies of the Framework which support sustainable development . Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 78. Polic y EQ2 sets out a range of cr iteria against which development proposal s will be considered which is consistent with Paragraph 180b) of the Framework which recognises the intrinsic value of the countryside . Policy YV2 s ets out requirements for each of the SUEs but outside the SUE is not relevant to the issues raised by this appeal. 79. The appeal scheme conflicts Policies SS1 , SS5, YV1 and EQ2 being located outside Yeovil located within a SUE . The scheme results in adverse landscape and visual effects . 80. Accordingly , g iven the degree of consisten cy which I find between these policies and the Framework I accord considerable weight to the conflict be tween the appeal scheme and the pol i cies of the development plan when considered overall . Material Considerations 81. Set against th is conflict are a range of important material considerations including the pol i cies of the Framework which weigh in favour of the appeal scheme . Housing 82. Of s tent failure over the last eight years 16 to maintain a 5 year housing land supply which according to the Council is currently at around three years 17 alt hough the appellant identify that it is actually just below this figure at 2.9 years. T his i s a significant and chronic shortfall , even acknowledged as such by the Council 18 . 83. The appellant 19 supplied evidence, uncontested by the Council , that housing supply has undermined the delivery of affordable housing . Since 2006 this has averaged at around 167 affordable dwelling per annu m (ADPA) well short of the anticipated target of 227 ADPA. The app ellant cites this shortfall as leading to a serious homelessness prob lem in Yeovil 20 . This was not contested by the Council. 84. The inclusion within the appeal scheme of 164 market and 88 affordable homes would partially address these matters in line with th e policies of the Framework and are theref o re accorded significant weight. Local Economy 85. The appeal scheme would have particular economic benefits derived from construction estimated at between 605 - 781 jobs . 21 . This figure was not contested by the Council. 86. Other economic benefits could be derived from the spending power of the new residents living in the appeal scheme. These would be significant because despite its location beyond the urban framework of Yeovil , the site lies within 16 SoCG Housing Land Supply 17 M s Tadman presented oral evidence to the Inquiry that f ollowing publication of the Framework in December buffer reduced supply to between 2.98 - 3. 1 comp a red to 3.29 years supply 18 Ms Tadman in Chief 19 Mr Kendrick PoE 20 Mr Kendrick PoE 21 Mr Kendrick PoE Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 walking distance of local shops and bus services affording access to the centre 22 . 87. F o r the s e reasons I accept that the appeal scheme w ould benefit the local economy in line with P aragraph 8 5 of the Framework which I accord significant weight. Location 88. Assessment 23 identifies that it is sufficiently close to existing shops and other services allowing for the implementation o f a travel plan included in the S106 Agreement. This could support access to shops and services by a range of modal choice . This would limit the generation of private transport consistent with Paragraph 109 of the Framework . 89. I accord this matter moderate weigh t . Phosphate Mitigation 90. The proposed phosphate mitigation included would generate around 7. 35kg surplus to that required for the appeal scheme. T h is support the development of additional housing which in turn could further address the Autho r chronic housing undersupply. 91. However , whilst there would be some value to the credit in how it may be used to partially overcome a local constraint on housing supply the critical matter is how the phosph ate mitigation meets the tests included in Paragra p h 57 of the Framewor k for this scheme. The fact that this exceeds what is necessary for the appeal schem e has value but not the degree to which the appellant accords it. 92. For this reason, I accord only moderate weight to this matter . Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) 93. The appeal site would thro ugh the suggested mitigation result in a BNG of around 24%. However, there is no requirement for this scheme to deliver a Biodiversity Net Gain of just 10% given th e date of submission of the original application for planning permission . The fact that the re would be an anticipated BNG as suggested by Paragraph 186d) of the Framework is noted as a benefit of the scheme to which I accord moderate weight. Heritage B ala nce 94. The heritage assets include the listed buildings and structures around the appeal site that need consideration in the Heritage Balance. 95. I find that the appeal scheme would lead to less than substantial harm to the s etting of Stone Farm and length of as designated heritage asset s . T he harm would be less than substantial and lies within the low range of that scale of harm and accordingly, I find that the extent of harm would be overcome by the social , economic and environmental public ben efits included in the appeal scheme. These includ e the provision of market and affordable 22 CD 4.3e 23 CD4.3e Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 housing, job creation and increased spending power and improvements in biodiversity. in a locat ion which could enable access to shops and services by a choice of transport mode s . Conditions 96. I have considered the suggested conditions in light of the related discussion at Planning Practice Guidance. The condi tions and wording set out in the schedule below reflect that discussion, although I have amended a number to make them more concise, precise and enforceable. 97. In addition to the standard conditions relating to outline schemes, it is necessary , in order to provide certainty, to identify the plans to which the decision relates, but only insofar as they relate to the matter of access (Conditions 1 - 4) . 98. The parameter plan of the proposed scheme informed the evidence to the Inquiry. In order to ensure that the d evelopment would not give rise to environmental or other impacts any greater than those already assessed within the Environmental Statement and other evidence, a condition is necessary to secure compliance with those parameters ( Condition 5 ). 99. Other condit ions are imposed to ensure Highway Safety (6 and 7) in line with Policy TA5. I have deleted Condition 6, as originally drafted, as this is covered in Condition 7 as the installation of cycle parking can be addressed through the submission of details for ea ch phase of development. I have imposed Condition 8 in respect of construction management activities to protect highway safety. 100. Given the environmental importance of Phosphate Mitigate (Condition 9), I have imposed a planning condition to ensure the del ivery of the scheme of mitigation required to address the phosphates likely to arise from this scheme. 101. In order to protect the living conditions of surrounding properties I have imposed Condition 10 in respect of the requirements for a construction manage ment plan to minimise the impact of construction activities. 102. In accordance with Paragraph 167 of the Framework , details of a sustainable surface water drainage scheme are required (Condition 11) , together with details for it s management . Th is is essential to ensure that the scheme continues to perform as intended, in order to avoid pollution and to prevent increased risk of flooding. 103. Given the potential archaeological interest of the site, further on - site evaluation is required, pursuant to Paragraph 200 of the Framework (Conditions 12 and 13). I have also imposed a Condition 14 in respect of the location of dwellings in relation to the cascading water features (REF: 190812 SK 007) given the potential for fly infestation derived from the location of the se werage treatment works on the north western edge of the appeal site . 104. I have not imposed the suggested condition requiring the submission of a landscaping scheme, since landscaping is one of the reserved matters and any scheme would, by virtue of one of the other conditions, need to comply with a strategic landscape plan to be submitted. Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 Conclusions 105. Whilst I accord significant weight to the conflict between the most important policies and the appeal scheme the actual harms arising are limited in scale and extent . Furthermore , the schem e includes a range of benefits which outweigh the harms arising . 106. T he Council s the central importance of Yeovil. However, the landscape surrounding Yeovil includes a sign i f i cant array of con s tra int s 24 which include historic parks and gardens, flood risk areas and local wildlife sites which limit the potential for its growth as required by policy . The appeal scheme would allow development on land which has a moderate sensitivity to change and whilst its development would result in some adverse impacts these would be limited in extent . 107. There has been a chronic shortfall in ho using land in recent years and the appeal schem e would increase the supply of both market and affordable housing. 108. Furthermore, d espite the location of the site outside the urban framework of Yeovil it lies sufficiently close to shops and services to allow access by a range of transport modes. This moderates the degree of conflict which I find between the appeal scheme and the settlement policies. 109. T he appeal schem e would lead to economic benefits through employment opportunities and increased spending power in shops and services. Other benefits include the increase in BNG and improvements to woodland. 110. consistently raised by interested parties , I find that the Access Strategy would serve to mitiga te concerns over existing highway safety issues through controlled and uncontrolled crossing points and additional footway s . The Highway Authority had no objection to the scheme. 111. loss of BMV agricu lt u r al land the surrounding area includes large tracts of Grade 1 and 2 land . The economic arguments in favour of retention are outweighed by th e benefits arising from its devel opment. 112. Paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework requires that where the most important policies are out of date that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when ass essed against the Framework when taken as a whole. 113. I conclude that the benefits of the appeal scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm identified when assessed against the policies of the Development Plan, when taken as a whole. As su ch the proposed sustainable development. 114. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted. Stephen Wilkinson , INSPECTOR 24 CD6. 4 S l ides for officer presentation on YV2 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 Sc hedule of Conditions 1. The development to which this p ermission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. 2. Application(s) for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority be fore the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 3. Approval of the details of the (a) layout (b) scale (c) appearance and (d) landscaping of the site (hereinafter called the reserved matters) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Au thority before any development is commenced and the development shall be carried out as approved. 4. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan (Ref: 190812 L 01 02 A) Access Plan (Ref: Ref: 23037/PHL/01 Rev E) 5. The reserved matters applications shall be in accordance w i th the approved parameter plan (ref: 190 812 SK007 C) in respect of land use and building heights. 6. The proposed roads, including footways and turning spaces where applicable, shall be constructed in such a manner as to ensure that each dwelling, before it is occupied, shall be served by a properly consolidated and surfaced footway and carriageway to at least base course level between the dwelling and existing highway. 7. No development on the elements listed below shall commence until the following information h as been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For this purpose, plans and sections, indicating as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Plann ing Authority: a) estate roads b) footways c) tactile paving d) cycleways e) retaining walls f) vehicle overhang margins g) visibility splays h) carriageway gradients i) drive gradients j) car, motorcycle and cycle parking k) hard and soft structural land scape areas, l) pedestrian and cycle routes and associated vehicular accesses and crossings, m) all new junctions, n) proposed levels o) bus stops and lay - bys or alternative facilities, p) highway drainage Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 q) swept path analysis for a vehicle of 11.4m length r) central pedestrian reserves, bollards and lighting, and s) an estate street phasing and completion plan setting out the development phases and completion sequence by which the estate streets serving each phase of the development will be completed . The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the approved estate street phasing and completion plan. 8. No development shall commence, including any demolition works, until a construction management plan or constru ction method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved plan/statement shall be adhered to throughout the demolition/construction period. The plan/statement shall provide for: a) A construction pro gramme including phasing of works; b ) 24 hour emergency contact number; c ) Hours of operation; d ) Expected number and type of vehicles accessing the site: - Deliveries, waste, cranes, equipment, plant, works, visitors; - Size of construction vehicles; - Th e use of a consolidation operation or scheme for the delivery of materials and goods; - Phasing of works; e) Means by which a reduction in the number of movements and parking on nearby streets can be achieved (including measures taken to ensure satisfactor y access and movement for existing occupiers of neighbouring properties during construction): - Programming; - Waste management; - Construction methodology; - Shared deliveries; - Car sharing; - Travel planning; - Local workforce; - Parking facilities for staff and visitors; - On - site facilities; - A scheme to encourage the use of public transport and cycling; f) Routes for construction traffic, avoiding weight and size restrictions to reduce unsuitable traffic on residential roads; g) Locati ons for loading/unloading, waiting/holding areas and means of communication for delivery vehicles if space is unavailable within or near the site; h) Locations for storage of plant/waste/construction materials; i) Arrangements for the turning of vehicles, to be within the site unless completely unavoidable; j) Arrangements to receive abnormal loads or unusually large vehicles; k) Swept paths showing access for the largest vehicles regularly accessing the site and measures to ensure adequate space is availab le; l) Any necessary temporary traffic management measures; m) Measures to protect vulnerable road users (cyclists and pedestrians); n) Arrangements for temporary facilities for any bus stops or routes; o) Method of preventing mud being carried onto the hi ghway; Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 p) Methods of communicating the Construction Management Plan to staff, visitors and neighbouring residents and businesses. 9. Details of the proposed Constructed Treatment Wetland, as referenced in shall be provided with the first Reserved Matters Application, demonstrating the design effectiveness of the wetland in re moving the required phosphorus budget to ensure the development achieves nutrient neutrality. The details submitted shall also include a programme of implementation. No development shall commence until these details have been approved in writing by the Loc al Planning Authority and implementation shall be in accordance with the details approved. 10. To prevent pollution during construction, no development shall commence until a scheme for the prevention of pollution has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme should include details of the following: a) Site security. b) Fuel oil storage, bunding, delivery and use. c) Method statement identifying how both minor and major spillage will be dealt with. d) Containm ent of silt/soil contaminated run - off. e) Disposal of contaminated drainage, including water pumped from excavations. f) Site induction for workforce highlighting pollution prevention and awareness. g) Measures should be taken to prevent the runoff of any contaminated drainage during the construction phase. This needs an implementation claus e 11. No development shall commence until a detailed surface water drainage scheme, based on sustainable drainage principles has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage strategy shall ensure that surface water run - off post development is attenuated on site and discharged at a rate and volume no greater than greenfield run - off rates and volumes. Such works shall be carried ou t in accordance with the approved details. These details shall include: - a) Details of phasing (where appropriate). b) Information about the design storm period and intensity, discharge rates and volumes (both pre and post development), temporary storage facilities, means of access for maintenance (6 metres minimum), the methods employed to delay and control surface water discharged from the site, and the measures taken to prevent flooding and pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters. c) Any works required off site to ensure adequate discharge of surface water without causing flooding or pollution (whic h should include refurbishment of existing culverts and headwalls or removal of unused culverts where relevant). d) Flood water exceedance routes both on and off site, to require that no part of the site will flood during any storm up to and including the 1 in Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 30 event and that flooding during storm events in excess of this including the 1 in 100yr (plus 40% allowance for climate change) must be controlled within the designed exceedance routes demonstrated to prevent flooding or damage to properties. 12. Bef ore the commencement of the development hereby permitted the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, shall have secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) which has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The WSI shall include details of the archaeological excavation, the recording of heritage asset s identified , the analysis of evidence recovered from the site and publication of the re sults. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved WSI . 13. No building works shall commence until the site archaeological investigation has been completed and post - excavation analysis has been initiated in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Condition 12 and financial provision made for analysis, dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured . 14. No dwellings shall be located within 150m of any permanently wet pond Wetland/ phosphate mitigation defined on the parameter plan (ref: 190812 SK 007 ). END OF SCHEDULE APPEARANCES Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Mr P Robson of Counsel He called M r C Potterton CMLI D irector Potterton Associates Ltd M s R Tad man MRTPI Director of Tadman Planning Consultants Ltd FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr S Choongh of Counsel He called Mr J Berry CMLI , AIEMA , M.Arbor.A Director , Tyler Grange Group Ltd Mr M Kendrick MRTPI Director, Grassroots Planning INTERESTED PERSONS: Ms D Newman Local Resident Inquiry Documents ID1 ID2 ID3 Plan of allocations and permitted sites ID4 Draft S106 Agreement ID5 NCA Yeovil escarpment ID6 Draft conditions ID7 Note on phosphates with Appendix received 25 January 2024 ID8 Council closings ID9 Appellant closings Documents submitted after the Inquiry closed Completed S106 Agreement⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Conclusions 105. Whilst I accord significant weight to the conflict between the most important policies and the appeal scheme the actual harms arising are limited in scale and extent . Furthermore , the schem e includes a range of benefits which outweigh the harms arising . 106. T he Council s the central importance of Yeovil. However, the landscape surrounding Yeovil includes a sign i f i cant array of con s tra int s 24 which include historic parks and gardens, flood risk areas and local wildlife sites which limit the potential for its growth as required by policy . The appeal scheme would allow development on land which has a moderate sensitivity to change and whilst its development would result in some adverse impacts these would be limited in extent . 107. There has been a chronic shortfall in ho using land in recent years and the appeal schem e would increase the supply of both market and affordable housing. 108. Furthermore, d espite the location of the site outside the urban framework of Yeovil it lies sufficiently close to shops and services to allow access by a range of transport modes. This moderates the degree of conflict which I find between the appeal scheme and the …
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3332249 (North Yorkshire Council) — 2024-05-01
📍 North Yorkshire Council PINS reference: 3332249 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 March 2024 by Mrs Chris Pipe BA(Hons), DipTP, MTP, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 st May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/U2750/D/23/3332249 Orchard Farm , Whitwell , North Yorkshire DL10 6BB The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr P Merson against the decision of North Yorkshire Council The application Ref : ZB23/01411/FUL dated 6 July 2023 , was refused by notice dated 15 September 2023 . The development proposed is described as c onversion, extension and alteration of an existing domestic outbuilding to provide additional living accommodation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the conversion, extension and alteration of an existing domestic outbuilding to provide additional living accommodation at Orchard Farm, Whitwell, North Yorkshire DL10 6BB in accordance w ith the terms of the application, Ref: ZB23/01411/FUL dated 6 July 2023 , and the plans submitted with it , subject to the following 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: Location pla n 220106 - 14 ; Site E levations 220106 - 22 ; Proposed E levations 220106 - 21 ; Proposed Floor Plan 220106 - 20 and Site plan 220106 - 23 . 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the brickwork of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) The accommodation hereby approved shall not be occup ied at any time as a separate independent dwelling and shall remain ancillary to the residential use of the main dwelling known as Orchard Farm. Main Issue s 2. The main issue s in this appeal are (i) whether the proposed development would be ancillary to the m ain dwelling; and (ii) the effect o f the proposed development on biodiversity . Reasons Ancillary Appeal Decision APP/U2750/D/23/3332249 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 3. The appeal site is within a rural location comprising a farmhouse which is a large detached two storey property with outbuildings around a n adjacent courtyard . Other rural outbuildings are within the immediate area and the site surrounded by open fields . 4. M y attention has been drawn to a previou s planning permission 1 relating to the conversion of the outbuilding to annex . I understand that the difference between the approval and the proposal before me is the inclusion of a n art/hobby room and an extension to the southwest elevation . 5. Policy E1p of the Hambleton Local Plan (2022) supports detached residential annexe s where the annexe is within the curtilage of the main dwelling, visually subordinate to the main dwelling, sited to ensure a clear functional link between the annexe and the main dwelling and shares the same access, parking and garden areas. 6. The proposed annexe would be single storey comprising living room , art/hobby room , two bedrooms, bathroom and plant room . The art/hobby room contains a workbench and sink as such this could theoretically be used as a kitchen. This configuration would establish the an nexe as a fully self - contained residential unit with independent facilities for day - to - day living. 7. While annexes can offer all amenities for habitation, they must functionally be part of the same residential planning unit as the main property. 8. T he current occupants of the main property would reside in the annexe with their daughter and her family occupying the main property. C ooking would be shared, and that if required support or care for family members would be provided . 9. T he annexe would share existin g gardens, access, car parking, outbuildings, and utilities with the main pro perty. S imilar to the planning permission approved for an annexe at the appeal site which was deemed to comply with policy. I consider th e se functional ly link the annexe to the main property . 10. In terms of the form of the annexe whilst the proposed extension is large in comparison to the existing outbuilding it is well designed complimenting the existing outbuilding and visually would appear subordinate to the main property. 11. The distance between the proposed annexe and the main property has not changed from the original permission . T he use of an outbuilding separate from the main property as an annexe is not unusual. The roofed pergola provides a degree of v isual connection to the annexe from the main property . 12. A planning application for a residential annex was submitted to the local Council. The application was classified as a householder development and deemed valid on this basis. Conditions can control who occupies the building. Creating a separate dwelling would require planning permission, as a change of use . On this basis Policies S5 and HG4 of the Local Plan are not relevant to the proposed development . 13. T he propos ed development would result in an ann ex e that is ancillary to the main property. It would not constitute a separate independent dwelling . There 1 Ref: 23/00054/FUL Appeal Decision APP/U2750/D/23/3332249 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 is no conflict with Polic y E 1 of the Local Plan which seeks amongst other things to ensure annexes are physically, visually and functional ancillary to the main property. Biodiversity 14. Policy E3 of the Local Plan expects all development to demonstrate the delivery of a net gain for biodiversity. It is clear in National Planning Policy Guidance 2 that decision makers should not giv e weight to local policy which requires biodiversity gains for types of development which would now be exempt under the statutory framework. 15. The exemptions are set out in parag raph 17 of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Exemptions) Regulations 2024. The biodiversity gain condition does not apply to householder development , as defined within Article 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Developmen t Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 . The proposed development is householder development. 16. I note that the proposal was submitted prior to the enactment of biodiversity net gain framework . Notwithstanding this, I also understand that the previous approval was determined under the same Local Plan policies and did not require a Biodiversity Net Gain. 17. Whilst the proposal would not comply with Policy E3 of the Local Plan i n this instance given the previous approval I consider it would be inappropriate to continue to give weight to aspects of the existing local polic y related to biodiversity gains which is inconsistent with the statutory framework for biodiversity net gain. Conclusion and Conditions 18. For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be allowed. 19. I have imposed conditions relating to the standard time limit for commencement of development and plans to be adhered to as this provides certainty. I have also added a condition concerning materials to ensure a satisfactory appearance. 20. I have imposed a condition requiring the proposed development to be ancillary to the main dwelling and not be used as a separate propert y in the interests of protecting the countryside from inappropriate development. INSPECTOR 2 Paragraph: 020 Reference ID: 74 - 020 - 20240214⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
C ooking would be shared, and that if required support or care for family members would be provided . 9. T he annexe would share existin g gardens, access, car parking, outbuildings, and utilities with the main pro perty. S imilar to the planning permission approved for an annexe at the appeal site which was deemed to comply with policy. I consider th e se functional ly link the annexe to the main property . 10. In terms of the form of the annexe whilst the proposed extension is large in comparison to the existing outbuilding it is well designed complimenting the existing outbuilding and visually would appear subordinate to the main property. 11. The distance between the proposed annexe and the main property has not changed from the original permission . T he use of an outbuilding separate from the main property as an annexe is not unusual. The roofed pergola provides a degree of v isual connection to the annexe from the main property . 12. A planning application for a residential annex was submitted to the local Council. The application was classified as a householder development and deemed valid on this basis. Conclusion and Conditions 18. For the above reasons I conclude that t…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3332047 (London Borough of Bromley) — 2024-05-01
📍 London Borough of Bromley LPA code: E09000006 PINS reference: 3332047 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 April 2024 by D Szymanski BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 MAY 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/W/23/3332047 Littlewood Farm, Jail Lane, Biggin Hill, Bromley TN16 3AX 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 Binfield Place Ltd against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. The application Ref DC/23/01741/FULL1 , dated 3 May 2023 , was refused by notice dated 30 June 2023 . The development proposed is Demolition of existing detached dwelling of two storey design and single storey li nked outbuilding and erection of replacement detached two storey dwelling, detached garage and detached stable building for personal use . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for Demolition of existing detached dwelling of two storey design and single storey linked outbuilding and erection of replacement detached two storey dwelling, detached garage and detached stable building for personal use at Littlewood Farm, Jail Lane, Biggin Hill, Bromley TN16 3AX in accordance with the terms of the planning application Ref. DC/23/01741/FULL1 , dated 3 May 2023 , subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule. Procedural Matters 2. The in its decision notice i s rather descriptive with respect to the features and attributes of the new dwelling . T he development proposed is shown on the plans . Therefore, in the banner heading and decision paragraph I have used the description from the application form as originally soug ht, which adequately describes the development. 3. Since the application was determined the revised National Planning Policy Framework (2023) (the Framework) was published. T he Council and Appellant have had the opportunity to comment upon th is during the appeal process . The references and paragraph numbering below reflect the revised Framework. 4. The appellant submitted a n update to the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal ( PE A Issue 4) with the appeal to address matters relating to badgers , subject of the Co econd reason for refusal. A further PEA revision (Issue 5) was submitted before the final deadline, to reflect an approach for an application upon neighbouring land. The Council is of the view the matter of protected species is addresse d and has withdrawn its reason for refusal. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/W/23/3332047 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 5. Although the revised PEA included only minor changes, I allowed the West Kent Badger Group (WKBG) , an opportunity to provide comments. No objection is made by the Council and the WKBG have no t offered any further feedback. Given the minor changes within the PEA I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by my taking it into account. Therefore, I have considered the appeal based upon the revised PEA and b ased upon the evidence before me, I have no t treated the effect upon protected species as a main issue. Main Issues 6. The main issues are: w hether or not the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt , including its ef fect upon openness ; and, if the proposed development is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, and if so, would this amount to the very special circumst ances required to justify the proposal. Reasons Inappropriate development 7. Paragraph 142 of the Framework states the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Paragraph 1 52 states that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. T he construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to exceptions in paragraphs 1 54 and 15 5 . Two exception s are the replacement of a building provided it is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces ( 1 54d) ) , and the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development ( 154g)). 8. Policy G2 of the London Plan (2021) (the LP) states the Green Belt should be protected from inappropriate development and proposals that would harm the Green Belt should be refused except where very special circumstances exist. Policy 49 of the London Borou gh of Bromley Local Plan (2019) (the LBBLP) states the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt will be inappropriate subject to a list of exc eptions, which insofar as is relevant to the appeal proposal , are similar to those in the Framework. Therefore, both policies are considered consistent with the Framework. 9. The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling , its plot with a detached outbuilding within the Green Belt. The propos al is for a replacement dwelling of a n increased floor area and volume, a new double garage identical to one approved under an unimplemented L awful D evelopment Certificate 1 (LDC1) , and a replacemen t of the dilapidated outbuilding. 10. T he existing dwelling has a footprint measuring approximately 77 square metres ( sqm ) , a floor area of approximately 133 sqm , and volume of some 274 c u bic metres (m3) . The replacement dwelling would have a n appro ximately 1 Ref. 22/04505/PLUD (11 January 2023) . Appeal Decision APP/G5180/W/23/3332047 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 121 sqm footprint , 2 08 sqm floor area , with a volume of approximately 579 m3 . It would have significantly increased scale , bulk, and massing , is materiall y larger than the existing and would have a marked adverse effect upon visual and spatial openness . Therefore, it would be inappropriate development. 11. T he garage would be a new building of approximately 38.5 sqm floorspace, at 2.175 m to the eaves and 4m to the ridge , where there is currently no building , adversely affecting visual and spatial o penness . It would therefore be inappropriate development . I am informed the existing dilapidated outbuilding has an approximately 71 sqm footprint and 212m3 volume . It would be replaced by building of approximately 57 sqm floorspace and 171m3 volume, at a similar height and in a similar position . The Council acknowledges it would be a smaller building and raises no objection to it. I see no reason why it would not meet the exception s under paragraphs 154d) or 154g). 12. However, t he propos al as a whole would result in a greater overall footprint of built development including the hardstanding across the site . A further minor increase might be necessary to p rovid e satisfactory vehicular turning space utilis ing the stable access and/ or garage driveway . The new garage and replacement dwelling would add a greater bulk , mass and scale of development across the site which clearly outweighs any reductions from the stable building . The proposal , as a whole , would have a marked adverse effect upon the visual and spatial openness of the Green Belt , visible in most directions . 13. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, taken as a whole the proposed development would not meet the exceptions under paragraphs 154d) and 154g) of the Fr amework or their equivalent set out in Policy 49 of the LBBLP. Therefore, it would be inappropriate development which would have a marked adverse effect upon the visual and spatial openness of the Green Belt. Other considerations 14. The appeal site benefits from fall - back positions by way of LDCs. An LDC (herein LDC 2) confirmed that two single storey side extensions and a two - storey rear extension were lawful at th e time 2 . There is nothing before me to suggest this is not still the case. It would result in a significant increase in footprint and floor area of the existing dwelling to app roximately 134 sqm, 217 sqm , and a marginally reduced volume of 57 9 m3. 15. LDC2 included detailed internal layout and elevation plans giving a clear indication of an implementable scheme. I see no reason LDC2 could not be implemented, so am satisfied there is a greater than theoretical possibility of the development taking place. I t would provide a significantly increased scale of dwelling with good quality accommodation, offer ing clearly improved living accommodation than offered by the current dwelling . With the submission of technical evidence with this appeal, ther e appears to be a clear intent to undertake development at this site, irrespective of the outcome of this appeal . 16. LDC1 is also well defined by the plans. Though garages are not essential for protecting, securing or storing cars or other items, I recognise they offer benefits to existing or future occupiers and are often desirable . Based upon 2 Ref. 17/03389/PLUD (dated 11 September 2017). Appeal Decision APP/G5180/W/23/3332047 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 the evidence before me, overall, I am satisfied that there is a high likelihood LDC1 and LDC2 would be implemented in the future , were this appeal to fail . 17. Like the existing building and fall - back positions , the appeal proposal would be prominent in the landscape. The new appeal dwelling would comprise an approximately 13 sqm footprint reduction, 9 sqm floorspace reduction , and 6 m3 volume increase. Its form , desig n, dormers elongated roof form and height , with more floorspace at first floor level , would result in a greater scale , massing and bulk overall , compared to the fall - back position . It would also appear there is a greater spread of dev elopment across the site. 18. N otwithstanding the the combination of brickwork, render and timber , roof slopes and dormers limit the scale , bulk and mass ing to some degree . Moreover, the dwelling would have a clearly reduced width at ground floor level and not quite be so deep as the fall - back dwelling . The width would be particularly perceptible to the south of the appeal site, which is open and would afford high visibility of either dwelling. On - balance the o verall increased bulk, scale and mass and effect upon openness compared to the fall - back scheme, would be very modest on the proposed dwelling . 19. As a matter of planning judgement, the composition of the form s , design and appearance of the proposed appeal dwelling is of a high quality. Considered in relation to the existing dwelling or its renovation , and either with or without the LDCs, the appeal scheme dwelling would be a considerable improvement. Lan dscaping enhancements can be secured by a su itably worded conditions, which would not be the case under the fall - back positions . Furthermore, the reduced scale and significantly improved design and visual appearance from re placing the existing prominent outbuilding with the new stable , is also a si gnificant benefit. Overall, the appeal scheme as a whole would result in considerable benefits to the character and appearance of the area. 20. As well as it being possible to secure landscaping of benef it to biodiversity, t he PEAs identify the opportunity to integrate habitat boxes and bricks. Noting the existing value of the appeal site and likely potential for marked improvements secured b y suitably worded condition s , this attracts limited weight in favour of the scheme. It is not clear whether there would be any overall economic or energy efficiency benefits from the appeal scheme compared to the fall - back positions , therefore, I have treated these as neutral matter s . 21. I have appeal R ef . APP/G5180/ W/18/3208604 . In that scheme , the tallest building was regarded as a lightweight structure to be replaced with a building of a solid appearance . The new development was understood to be on higher ground than the existing , it removed screening vegetation, and was judged to have a n adverse effect upon the rural character and appearance. Therefore, it is not directly comparable to the circumstances to appeal scheme, so while noting its contents, I attribute it moderate weight . Other Matters 22. The ecological ev idence identifie s low or negligible potential on the appeal site for most protected species recorded in the wider area , although a badger sett has been identified in the area was due to an absence of detailed information relating to its pos ition, extent , population , and uncertainty as to the ef fects upon the sett and potential licensing requirements. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/W/23/3332047 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 23. The u pdated evidence confirms the sett location, extent , its likely populati on and measures to address and mitigate any effects from the proposal . The widest buffer zone only impinges to a very minor degree on the appeal site, and the plans do not indicate any built development in this location. B est practice measures and guidel ines are recommended for site activities to ensure there would be no adverse effects. The Council no longer raises an objection in this regard, subject to the imposition of suitably worded planning conditions. 24. Buildings were surveyed as having a low or negligible potential for bats , and no evidence of bats being present in them was identified by a recent emergence survey . Suitable mitigation and enhancement measures for protected species are secured by the planning conditions below by referring to measures in the PEA . I am satisfied that the conditions would ensure the development could take place without result ing in harm, in compliance with Policies 70 and 72 of the LBBLP which require that development secures mitigation measures to ensure it would not result in an adverse effect upon protected species. 25. The Council concludes the proposed development would not result in harmful effects upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and based upon what I saw and the evidence b efore me, I see no reason to disagree. The likely number of vehicle movements generated would be very small, and unlikely to be discernibly greater if at all , compared to the existing and fall - back positions. S atisfactory turning arrangements could be ad dressed by a planning condition to ensure that vehicles could enter and leave in a forward gear . Green Belt Balance 26. The appeal proposal amounts to inappropriate development and would result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt. This attracts substa ntial weight. However, the appeal scheme would result in a much more visually attractive and well - designed dwelling when compared to the existing appeal site development and the fall - back scheme . Conditions can secure improved landscaping . Overall, the a ppeal scheme would result in a considerable improvement to the character and appearance of the area compared to the existing or fall - back positions and t here would also be some benefits to biodiversity by way of securing a scheme of ecological enhancements . 27. In this particular case , in combination the benefits attract very substantial weight , such that I consider that the harm by reason of inappropriateness and harm to the openness of th e Green Belt , are clearly outweighed by the other considerations identified. These amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal. Therefore, the pr oposed development would be compliant with paragraphs 152 and 154 of the Frame work, Policy G2 of the LP and Policy 49 of the LBBLP, the relevant provisions of which I have set out above. Conditions 28. I have considered the suggested planning conditions in the context of the advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidan ce. Conditions specifying the time limit and plans are necessary in the interests of certainty. In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety, the character and appearance of the area , protected species and the living conditions of neighbouring occup iers a condition to secure a Construction and Environmental Management Plan is necessary. It is necessary this is pre - commencement so Appeal Decision APP/G5180/W/23/3332047 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 that it encompasses all construction works and should include reference to the latest version of the PE A and the WKBG con sultation response. 29. A pre - commencement condition is necessary to demarcate the exclusion area to avoid any works being undertaken during construction that would result in harm to protected species. Further conditions are necessary to prevent harm to protected species stipulat ing the types of operations within a specified distance of a badger sett and exclude all works within 20m without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. A condition for a detailed surface water drainage scheme, is necessary to ensure satisfactory drainage, prevent an y increased risk of flooding , and to protect water quality. 30. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the openness of the Green Belt a condition is necessary to approve the detail the proposed slab levels of the development. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area conditions are necessary to secur e the approval and implementation of a landscaping scheme, its maintenance and r e tention , and samples of the materials to be used in the external surfacing of the development hereby permitted . In the interests of highway safety, it is necessary for the landscap e condition to include details of hardstanding s and the provision of suita ble turning area s . 31. To secure the implementation of biodiversity enhancements a condition is necessary for their submission and approval, although given the existing PEA habitat mapping and the scope for their implementation, it is not necessary for this t o be a pre - commencement condition. In the interests of the openness of the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the area, a condition has clear justification and is necessary to withdraw permitted development rights for specified Classes under Part 1 of the GPDO 3 . In the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the openness of the Green Belt a condition restricting the use of stable building to the occupiers of the dwelling and on a non - commercial basis is necessary. Co nclusion 32. The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. However, as I con sider very special circumstances exist, I find the development is compliant with the development plan read as a whole and the Framework read as a whol e. There are no material considerations that indicate the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan and the Framework. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed. Dan Szymanski INSPECTOR 3 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). Appeal Decision APP/G5180/W/23/3332047 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 --- 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: HA22 - 21 - P 201 L ocation plan ; HA 22 - 21 - P 203 Proposed site plan; HA22 - 21 - P 2 06 P roposed replacement dwelling floor plans and elevations ; HA22 - 21 - P 208 Proposed stables floor plans and elevations ; HA22 - 2 2 1 - P003 Proposed garage f loorplans and elevations. 3) Prior to th e commencement of the development hereby permitted , a Construction and Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Amongst other things , it shall include: a) Dust mitigation and management meas ures; b) The location and operation of plant and wheel washing facilities; c) Measures to reduce demolition and construction noise; d) Provision for the implementation of precautionary measures to avoid impacting upon mammals in accordance wi th paragraph s 4.1 0 4. 1 4 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Version 5 ) by Ecology Partnership ( February 2024 ) and point 2 of the consultation response by West Kent Badger Group to application Ref. 23/01741/FULL1 ; e) Details of construction traffic movements including cumulative impacts which shall demonstrate the following: i) Rationalis ing travel and traffic routes to, from and within the site ; ii) D etails of the number and tim ing of construction vehicle trips with the aim of reducing the impact of construction related activity; iii) Measures to ensure safe pedestrian movement s ; iv) The full contact details of the site and project manager responsible for day - to - day management of the works; v) Parking for opera tives during the construction period; vi) Swept path drawings for any tight manoeuvres on vehicle routes to and from the site including access and egress arrangements at the site boundary; f) Hours of operation; g) Other site - specific highways and environmental prot ection issues as requested on a case - by - case basis; The development hereby permitted shall only be undertaken in accordance with the approved Construction and Environmental Management Plan , for the lifetime of the works hereby permitted. 4) Notwithstanding th e requirements of condition 3 above, prior to any demolition or construction works commencing on site, an exclusion zone Appeal Decision APP/G5180/W/23/3332047 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 shall be fenced off using temporary heras fencing during construction along the 30m buffer zone to the badger sett. The fencing shall remain in position and maintained in good repair throughout the construction of the development. No vehicles, plant, equipment, goods, materials or other articles shall be stored, repaired, serviced or assembled, and no bonfires shall take place on the excluded fenced off area. 5) Notwithstanding the requirements of condition 4 above, construction works that are required to be undertaken within 30m of a badger sett shall only be undertaken between the months of July November inclusive. 6) Notwithstanding the requirements of condition s 3 and 4 above, no buildings, structure s , enclosures or other works requiring excavation associated with this approved development shall be carried out within 20m of a badger sett unless otherwise previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 7) a ) No works other than ground clearance and demolition shall take place until a detailed scheme for the provision of surface water drainage and its timescales for implementation has been submitted to and approved in writin g by the Local Planning Authority. b) The scheme shall be informed by an assessment of the potential for disposing of surface water by a sustainable drainage system (SUDS) to ground , water course or sewer in accordance with the hierarchy contained within Policy 5.13 of the London Plan and the National SUDS Standards. c) where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, the submitted details shall provide information about the design storm period , intensity and the method employed to attenuate and cont rol the rate of surface water run - off discharged from the site as close to greenfield r un - off rates (8ls/ha) as reasonably practical , and the measures to be undertaken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater or surface water. d) The drainage sche me approved under parts a), b) and c) above shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted. 8) No works other than ground clearance and demolition shall take place until details of the existing ground levels and proposed slab levels of the new buildings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority . The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the approved levels. 9) Prior to the development taking place above slab level, details of proposed hard and soft landscaping , and a timetable for imp lementation , shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority . Amongst other things the details shall include: a) A scaled plan showing all existing vegetation to be retained , and all new landscaping which s hal l include a minimum of 30% native plant species of home - grown stock, and no invasive species; b) A schedule detailing the size, location and number of all trees and plants; Appeal Decision APP/G5180/W/23/3332047 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 c) A specification to ensure the successful and establishment of all planting; d) The proposed hardstanding areas including parking and turning areas with provision of sufficient space for the manoeuvring of vehicles; and , e) Proposed b oun dary treatment s . The hard and soft landscap ing works shall be strictly undertaken in accordance with the approved details. 10) There shall be no excavation, raising or lowering of land levels within the root protection areas of retained trees unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any new trees and other new plants that die, are removed or become severely damaged or diseased , shall be replaced by the same species, specification and in the same location as previously approved withi n the first available planting season after its failure unless otherwise previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 11) Prior to development taking place above slab level , details of biodiversity mitigation and enhancements and a timetable for their implementation shall have been submitted to and approved in w riting by the Local Planning Authority , integrating t he recommended ecological enhancements s et out within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal by The Ecology Partnershi p ( February 2024 ) . The proposed enhancements shall be implemented as approved and shall be permanently retained at the site thereafter . 12) Prior to the development hereby permitted proceeding above slab level, notwithstanding any indication of external mater ials set out in the application, details including samples of the external materials including the roof, wall facing materials and cladding, the window s, doors and decorative features, rainwater goods, and paving shall have been submitted to and approved i n writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved materials. 13) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Englan d) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re - enacting that Order with or without modification), no building, structure, extension, enlargement or alteration permitted by Class A, B, C or E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 shall be undertaken without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority . 14) The stable building hereby permitted shall be used solely by the occupiers of the main dwellinghouse hereby permitted occupying the site and shall not be used on a commercial basis or rented out to th ird parties. End of schedule .
⚖️ 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.