🏆 Winning Arguments
Real PINS Inspector reasoning from appeals where refusals on Heritage 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 Heritage was OVERTURNED (national).
Each card quotes the inspector's reasoning verbatim — drop directly into your appeal statement as precedent (with proper attribution).
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3376692 (Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area *) — 2026-05-29
📍 Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * LPA code: E07000006 PINS reference: 3376692 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 March 2026 by M Chalk BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 Boveney Court Farm , Boveney Road, Dorney, W indsor , Buckinghamshire, SL4 6QG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for [outline] planning permission • The appeal is made by Eton College against Buckinghamshire Council. • The application Ref is PL/25/0354/FA. • The development proposed is d emolition of open sided barn, conversion, alteration and change of use of existing buildings from Use Class B8 to Use Class C3 to provide 7 residential units and construction of 5 new residential units, to provide a total of 12 residential units (2 x 2 bedroom; 6 x 3 bedroom; and 4 x 4 bedroom) including hard and soft landscaping, attenuation pond, bin and cycle stores, car parking, infrastructure and associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for d emolition of open sided barn, conversion, alteration and change of use of existing buildings from Use Class B8 to Use Class C3 to provide 7 residential units and construction of 5 new residential units, to provide a total of 12 residential units (2 x 2 bed room; 6 x 3 bedroom; and 4 x 4 bedroom) including hard and soft landscaping, attenuation pond, bin and cycle stores, car parking, infrastructure and associated works at Boveney Court Farm , Boveney Road, Dorney, Windsor, Buckinghamshire, SL4 6QG in accordan ce with the terms of the application, Ref PL/25/0354/FA and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Applications for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Eton College against the council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matters 3. The appeal proposal is functionally unchanged from that previously dismissed on appeal in July 2024 1 . Since that time additional information has been provided in relation to the effect on bats or other protected and important species. 4. The site is in the Green Belt. In determining the previous appeal on this site in July 2024 the Inspector found that the proposal was not inappropriate development as it comprised the redevelopment of previously developed land which would not cause substan tial harm to openness. That appeal was assessed against the December 2023 National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) , but the most recent Framework update in December 2024 contains essentially the same exception to what constitutes inappropriate de velopment at paragraph 154(g). 1 PINS ref: APP/N0410/W/23/3335905 Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 There are no changes to the scale or siting of the proposed development from that earlier decision. It would be contained principally within the bounds of the existing built form and hardstanding within the site. While there would be some loss of openness from the new houses due to their siting and height, I agree with my colleague that this would amount to no more than moderate harm. Consequently, the proposal would accord with the exception at paragraph 154(g) of the Framework. 5. Like cases should be determined in like manner, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the December 2024 revisions to the Framework state at paragraph 156 that major housing development in the Green Belt should provide affordable housing that reflects local or national policy , necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure, and the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public. These are known as the Golden Rules and are a material consideration in the determination of this appeal . 6. A separate application for listed building consent 2 was submitted to the council for works to a Grade II listed barn on the site. Consent was granted in September 2025 for those works , and therefore this is not a consideration in this appeal . Main Issues 7. There is no dispute between the main parties about the proposed improvements to local infrastructure. The main issues are therefore : • Whether the appeal proposal would provide sufficient affordable housing , • Whether it would make acceptable provision of open space , • The effect of the proposal on protected and important species and habitats, with particular regard to bats ; and, • Given local concerns about safe access in the event of flooding, I have also elevated this to a main issue having sought the views of the main parties . Reasons Affordable housing 8. The Framework states that major housing development in this location must contribute 50% affordable housing . National Planning Practice Guidance states that for development which is subject to the Golden Rules a site specific viability assessment should not be undertaken for the purpose of reducing developer contributions, including affordable housing. It is not disputed that the development would not provide 50% affordable housing , with a contribution equating to 21% towards offsite housing instead proposed. 9. Co r e Policy 3 of the South Bucks Core Strategy require s at least 40% in schemes of 5 units and above to be affordable . The policy allow s both for off - site provision and for a lower contribution where it is clearly demonstrated that this is not economically viable. The appeal proposal does not therefore conflict with Core 2 Council ref: PL/25/0355/HB Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 Policy 3, as the council have accepted that a fully compliant scheme would not be economically viable. 10. Nonetheless, the development would fail to provide sufficient affordable housing , contrary to the Framework. Open space 11. The Framework further requires that the development provide new green spaces that are accessible to the public, or improvements to the same. The council have identified a requirement for 0.11 hectares of open space to be provided as part of this development, including a Local Area of Play of at least 100 square metres. The appellant does not dispute this requirement. 12. N o public open space would be provided as part of the development. Furthermore, no contributions are included in the submitted unilateral undertaking towards the improvement of existing public green space. 13. Consequently, the development would also fail to make acceptable provision for open space, contrary to the requirements of the Framework. Bats and protected species 14. The previous appeal on this site was dismissed as the Inspector found that the bat surveys for the site were out of date and therefore it was unlikely that Natural England would grant a mitigation licence for the proposed works . S ubsequently new surveys have been conducted which provide an updated position statement for bats on the site. 15. I have had regard to my duties under Regulations 9(1) and 9(3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 in relation to nature conservation. In this instance the presence of bats within the buildings has been established by the provided surveys. These have been reviewed by Natural England alongside their grant of a licence for works to a neighbouring building. Natural England ha s indicated that it would likely accept the mitigation methods described. 16. The council’s ecology consultee has also reviewed the additional information and advised that the development would be acceptable, subject to conditions. C onditions securing suitable care and mitigation measures are set out in the attached schedule. The proposed mitigation measures would minimise the disturbance to bats from a development that would deliver new housing in a district where there is a recognised shortfall of housing land through the redevelopment of redundant buildings . The development would therefore successfully meet the tests for receiv ing a European protected species licence from Natural England, subject to compliance with the proposed conditions . T here would consequently be no unacceptable impacts to bats arising from the proposed development. 17. The appeal proposal would therefore accord with Core Policy 9 of the Core Strategy, which requires biodiversity resources to be conserved and enhanced. Flooding 18. The appeal site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3. A flood risk assessment has been provided . While not a concern raised by the council or its internal consultees, there Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 is public interest in the possibility of flooding causing a loss of access from the appeal site. The Environment Agency noted in a consultation response that the development would result in a situation of d anger to m ost people in the event of flooding with a danger of loss of life for the general public . The main parties’ comments were sought on this point . 19. The appeal site lies between the River Thames and the Jubilee River. This latter watercourse was constructed as a flood relief channel for the River Thames. However, subsequent flooding has shown that the design of the Jubilee River was inadequate to handle higher levels of overflow. Residents and the Parish Council have therefore expressed concerns that in the event of further flooding occupiers of the proposed houses would be at risk due to being unable to evacuate. 20. F looding of a scale that would affect access to the appeal site would occur in a 1 in 100 flood event. Such an event would affect the wider Thames Valley, and any effect on the access to the site would be preceded by several days of flood effects in the wider area. This would provide advance warning to residents of a potential need to evacuate , with updates available should the water level continue to rise. 21. The risk to residents of being unable to evacuate is therefore slight , considering the slim possibility of a flood event of sufficient magnitude occurring and the considerable lead time before the evacuation route would be affected . Paragraph 181 of the Framework states that in areas at risk of flooding development should only be allowed where, amongst other considerations, safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate. Given the low level of risk, the development would accord with this requi rement. Other Matters 22. The appeal site lies within the Boveney Conservation Area , and I have a duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving its character or appearance . There is also a Grade II listed building on the site, identified as building B on the submitted plans , and I must have special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting . The Conservation A rea is characterised by scattered properties of varying ages set in spacious gardens and other open spaces. The listed building is a 17th or 18th century timber - framed building finished partly in weatherboarding and with a tiled roof. The farmyard provides the setting within which the barn is principally experienced . In determining the previous appeal on this site my colleague concluded that the proposal would result in a slight enhancement to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The appeal proposal is identical to that scheme, and there is no evidence before me to lead me to find otherwise. It would also therefore preserve the setting of the listed building. 23. The development has been proposed despite concerns over its viability. However, a contribution towards affordable housing would be provided and the unilateral undertaking allows for a further viability review as part of the development . This could secure additional revenue if the return on the development exceeds that which is expected . It also secures contributions towards the provision of NHS services. I see no reason to doubt that the contributions would be used as identified in the undertaking. The council has asked for the undertaking to be varied to take account of different figures . However, given the lack of viability of the development I am content that the undertaking as submitted is acceptable . Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 24. My attention has been drawn to a recent decision made by the council to refuse permission for the residential redevelopment of a site elsewhere in Dorney . I note that this other development was found to fail the sequential test for flooding and the site was found to not be in a sustainable location . Given these significant differences the council’s decision does not lead me to alter my conclusions on this development. 25. A neighbouring occupier has queried the accuracy of the red line on the application drawings. However, the appropriate ownership certificate was served on the neighbour advising of the development before the application was submitted. 26. A neighbour expressed concerns about w indows facing into their property over the shared boundary. These windows are existing and at a high level in the wall s , but would serve habitable rooms and bathrooms in units C and D. Where these windows would serve habitable rooms these would be dual - aspect or open plan rooms with other windows to provide outlook. Accordingly, a suitably worded c o ndition could ensure that these windows are retained as non - opening with obscured glazing to preserve the privacy of the neighbouring occupiers. While the neighbour also expressed concern about light from these windows there would be no change to their size or siting . This would therefore not resu lt in unacceptable harm to neighbour living conditions. 27. Interested parties raised concerns about the council’s handling of the application in relation to public consultation and the extent to which they sought the views of consultees on the matter of flood risk. However, i t is not within the scope of this appeal to address th ese concerns . 28. The site is located outside the built - up areas of the surrounding settlements. Occupiers would be dependent to an extent on private vehicles but no more so than those in neighbouring properties, and there are some amenities in the nearby settlements within walking or cycling distance. While the road into the main built - up area of Dorney does not have a footpath along it, it is fairly wide and visibility along it is good. I am therefore satisfied that the site is not an unsustainable location for residential development. 29. The development makes provision for wildlife habitats which would be secured by condition. This is supported by the council, and there is no detailed evidence before me to suggest that such measures would not be effective. The construction environmental management plan would detail the existing biodiversity features of the site, a nd explain how harm would be avoided during construction. Planning balance 30. The appeal proposal would not comply with the Golden Rules set out in the Framework for major housing development in the Green Belt. As the proposal complies with one of the exceptions set out in paragraph 154 of the Framework this would not make it inappr opriate development in the Green Belt, but a failure to comply does weigh against the proposal. 31. The council can only demonstrate a housing land supply o f 0.91 years, which is an acute shortfall against the minimum requirement of 5 years. Accordingly, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 32. The development would make a contribution towards affordable housing , albeit not a policy - compliant one. The shortfall therefore attracts moderate negative weight in the overall balance. 33. The appeal site is next to Dor n ey Common , a large area of public green space. Given the proximity to existing public space t he lack of provision of , or contribution to, public space therefore also attracts moderate weight against the proposal . 34. G iven the council’s housing land supply position, the harm arising from the failure to comply with the Golden Rules would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the considerable benefits that wo uld result from the proposed development. Planning permission should therefore be granted. Conditions 35. The council has recommended conditions . I have considered these against national planning practice guidance and, where necessary, amended the wording . 36. I have imposed conditions relating to the commencement of development (1) and confirming the approved plans (2) for the sake of certainty. I have omitted from the list of approved plans those which are not to scale as these are informative but cannot be considered enforceable. 37. Conditions requiring the approval of materials (3) and compliance with the approved arboricultural method statement (4) are reasonable to secure an acceptable finished appearance for the development. 38. Conditions 5, 6 and 7 ensure that development does not proceed on site if the land is found to be contaminated unless that contamination is remediated . Conditions 8 and 9 secure the access to and within the site, together with parking. Condition 10 ensures that reasonable archaeological investigat i ons are carried out on site as part of the approved development. 39. Conditions 11 to 15 would prevent any undue effect to biodiversity from the development and provide certainty about the protection of bats in particular. 40. Flood risk at the site and surface water management would be controlled by c onditions 16 to 20 . These would include compliance with the submitted flood risk assessment, agreement of a flood risk management plan which would include evacuation plans and information for future occupiers , agreement of surface water management measures and agreement of details of maintenance for the site’s drainage system. 41. A condition requiring that obscured glazing be fitted to windows in Units C and D that face onto a shared boundary (2 1 ) is reasonable to prevent loss of privacy to the neighbouring occupiers. C onclusion 42. For the reasons set out above the appeal is allowed. M Chalk INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 Schedule of planning conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos : 5540 - 1100 - REV - I Proposed Residential Development Location Plan 5540 - 1101 - REV - E Existing Site Block Plan 5540 - 1102 - REV - K Proposed Site Block Plans 5540 - 1103 - REV - H Development Footprint Comparison Plan and Table 5540 - 1104 - REV - E Lighting Strategy 5540 - 1200 - REV - E Existing Plans – Unit B 5540 - 1201 - REV - E Existing Plans – Units C,D,E,F1,F2 and G 5540 - 1202 - REV - D Existing Roof Plan – Units C,D,E,F1,F2 and G 5540 - 1210 - REV - H Proposed Plans – Unit B 5540 - 1211 - REV - H Proposed Plans – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G 5540 - 1212 - REV - H Proposed Plan – Units H - J and K - L - M 5540 - 1213 - REV - E Proposed Roof Plans – Units C,D,E,F1,F1 and G 5540 - 1233 - REV - E Ground Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit B 5540 - 1234 - REV - D First Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit B 5540 - 1235 - REV - D Roof Demolition Plan and Current Condition Unit B 5540 - 1236 - REV - E Ground Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit C and D 5540 - 1237 - REV - D Roof Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit C and D 5540 - 1238 - REV - D Ground Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit E 5540 - 1239 - REV - D Roof Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit E 5540 - 1240 Existing Open Sided Barn – To Be Demolished 5540 - 1301 - REV - B Existing Elevations and Section – Unit B 5540 - 1302 - REV - C Existing Elevation and Section s – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G 5540 - 1303 - REV - D Existing Elevations and Sections – Unit C,D,E,F1,F2,G 5540 - 1311 - REV - D Proposed Elevations and Sections – Unit B 5540 - 1312 - REV - G Proposed Elevations – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G (1/2) 5540 - 1313 - REV - H Proposed Elevations – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G (2/2) and Sections 5540 - 1314 - REV - F Proposed Elevations and Section – Units H – J 5540 - 1315 - REV - H Proposed Strip Elevations 5540 - 1320 - REV - A Proposed Elevations and Sections – Units K - L - M 5540 - 1321 Proposed Bin Store Floor Plans and Elevations 5540 - 1322 - REV - A Existing and Proposed Strip Elevations 5540 - 1335 - REV - A External Current Condition and Demolitions - Unit B 5540 - 1336 - REV - B Internal Current Condi tion – Unit B 5540 - 1337 - REV - A Externals Current Condition and Demolition – Units C - D - E 5540 - 1338 - REV - A Externals Current Condition and Demolition – Units C - D - E 5540 - 1355 - REV - B Unit B – Elevations as Proposed 5540 - 1356 - REV - B Unit B – Sections as Proposed 5540 - 1357 - REV - B Units C - D - E – Front and Rear Elevations as Proposed 5540 - 1358 - REV - B Units C - D - E – Side Elevations as Proposed 5540 - 1401 - REV - C Barn B – Proposed Typical Section and Details 5540 - 1402 Units C & D – Proposed Typical Section Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 5540 - 1403 Unit E – Proposed Typical Section 5540 - 1404 - REV - C Barn B – Proposed Typical Connection Detail 5540 - 1405 - REV - A Barns C & D – Typical Conservation Roof light Detail 20102 - SFK - B - GF - DR - S - 0100 T1 Barn B Plans, Section and Elevations as Existing 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0200 T2 Barn B Demolition 20102 - SFK - B - GF - DR - S - 0300 T1 Barn B Ground Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - 1 F - DR - S - 0301 T2 Barn B First Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - R - DR - S - 0302 T2 Barn B Roof Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0303 T1 Barn B Section as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0304 T2 Barn B Steelwork Plan and Details 20102 - SFK - A - XX - DR - S - 0407 Rev B Detail 7 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0411 Rev B Detail 11 – Rafter Repairs 20102 - SFK - CDE - GF - DR - S - 0300 P1 Buildings C, D & E Ground Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - CDE - GF - DR - S - 0301 P1 Buildings C, D & E First Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - Gen - XX - DR - S - 0412 Detail 12 – Wall / Soleplate Repairs 3) Prior to any works above ground floor slab level, a detailed schedule of works and materials to be used to for the development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority . The details to be submitted shall include the following: a) Elevational materials to be used on existing and proposed buildings; b) Matching brick bond to plinth of listed building and mortar mix; c) All internal and external new joinery details (doors and windows) at an appropriate scale, including sections and glazing bars; d) Details of contemporary glass framing system; e) Details of insulation to be provided for listed building and curtilage listed buildings; f) Metal rainwater goods; g) Details of roof lights and lanterns h) Details of hard surfacing to be used throughout the site i) Details of any new external flues, vents, grills, or external pipework The development shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the approved details. 4) The development shall be implemented in accordance with the document titled Tree c ondition s urvey, Arboricultural Implications Assessment a nd p rotection r ecommendations w ith descriptions of landscape enhancements dated 7 January 2025 , and the plans contained within it , submitted and approved as part of the planning application . The works shall be carried out under the supervision of a retained arboricultural specialist to ensure that the phasing of the development accords with the stages detailed in the method statement , and that the correct materials and techniques are employed. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 5) Prior to any below ground works commencing on site , the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority: i) A site investigation, based on the Phase 1 Ground Condition Assessment prepared by Stantec and dated January 2025 , to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. This should include an assessment of the potential risks to: human health, property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, pests, woodland and service lines and pipes, adjoining land, ground waters and surface waters, ecological systems, archaeological sit es and ancient monuments. ii) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (i) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. iii) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (ii) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangement s for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. 6) Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme and prior to the first use or occupation of the development, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced together w ith any necessary monitoring and maintenance programme and copies of any waste transfer notes relating to exported and imported soils shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The approved monitoring and maintenance programme shall b e implemented and continued in accordance with the approved details . 7) Any contamination that is found during the course of construction of the development hereby permitted that was not previously identified shall be reported immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be su spended until a risk assessment has been carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found, the development shall not resume or continue until remediation and verification schemes have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 8) No part of the approved development shall be occupied until the existing means of access has been sited and laid out in general accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with the Buckinghamshire Council guide note "Commercial Vehicular Access Within the P ublic Highway". 9) The scheme for parking, garaging and manoeuvring indicated on the submitted plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall be retained thereafter. 10) No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, have undertaken a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation , including details of how any findings shall be recorded, which has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 11) The development shall not commence until a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (the HMMP), prepared in accordance with the approved biodiversity metric calculation and its supporting documents , has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The HMMP shall include : (a) a non - technical summary; (b) the roles and responsibilities of the people or organisation(s) delivering the HMMP; (c) the planned habitat creation and enhancement works to create or improve habitat to achieve the biodiversity net gain in accordance with the approved metric ; (d) the management measures to maintain habitat in accordance with the approved biodiversity metric calculation for a period of 30 years from the completion of development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The created and/or enhanced habitat specified in the approved HMMP shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved HMMP. 12) Prior to the commencement of development above ground level, an ecological enhancements scheme to detail bat roost replacement features, such as bat boxes, bat tiles/access features and bat lofts, swift boxes and sparrow boxes, reptile hibernacula/log pile s, stag beetle log piles, wildlife kerbs, and gaps at ground level of boundary fences for the movement of hedgehogs, shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The development shall proceed in accordance with the ecological enhancements, which shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the development and retained thereafter. 13) Before any construction works hereby approved are commenced, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) detailing, in full, measures to protect existing habitat during construction works and to safeguard protected and notable species, shall be sub mitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The CEMP should be completed in accordance with the British Standard on Biodiversity BS 42020:2013 with these details below: a) Details of what biodiversity features could be impacted on and what development activities could be potentially damaging; b) A rolling timetable of when and where specific measures to avoid / reduce impacts are to be carried out including any seasonal or legal implications (e.g. the bird nesting season) and who is responsible; c) Details of method statements for specific biodiversity issues (e.g. for specific destructive activities such as: vegetation clearance, hedgerow removal, tree felling, soil stripping and building demolition); d) Identify all practical measures (e.g. fencing, protective barriers and warning signs) and sensitive working practices to avoid impacts; e) Details of inspections to ensure wildlife do not become trapped in excavations or machinery; f) Details of other responsible person and lines of communication on - site in relation to the implementation of the CEMP; Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 g) Details of contingency measures in the event of an accident or other potentially damaging incident (e.g. pollution incidents; how to deal with previously unrecorded protected species found during construction and restoration; unexpected bad weather; rep air of damaged features etc.); h) Details of procedures to avoid pollution incidents (e.g. from fuel spills and site run - off based on an understanding of the wildlife interest at risk); i) Regular review of the implementation of CEMP throughout the construction / restoration phase to monitor effectiveness of mitigation measures and compliance with legal, planning and/or contractual requirements; j) Details of biosecurity protocols / method statements to prevent spread of non - native species; k) Temporary management of existing wildlife features during construction / implementation. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 14) Prior to occupation, a "lighting design strategy for biodiversity" shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall: a) identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places or along important routes used to access key areas of their territory, for examp le, for foraging; and b) show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent the above species u sing their territory or having access to their breeding sites and resting places. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the strategy, and these shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the strategy. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be ins talled without prior consent from the local planning authority. 15) The development shall be implemented in strict accordance with the agreed reptile mitigation plan (Re ptile Mitigation Strategy, Davidson Watts - Ecology, 12 January 2023). 16) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (reference 332612015, dated January 2025 by Stantec) , Stantec letter dated 7 May 2025, reference Project/File: J:32612015 Boveney Court Farm and the Stantec Technical Note dated March 2026 , including the following mitigation measures: • Finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 21.49 metres above Ordnance Datum (AOD) • Compensatory storage shall be provided as set out in Stantec Drawing 49209/4001/002, Revision C named 'Floodplain Storage Analysis' These mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the scheme's timing/phasing arrangements. The measures detailed above shall be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the de velopment. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 17) No works (other than demolition) shall begin until a Flood Risk Management Plan based on the draft submitted with the March 2026 Stantec Technical Note has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the approved Ma nagement Plan. 18) Prior to the commencement of development above ground level a scheme showing details of boundary treatment within the 1% annual exceedance probability plus 35% allowance for climate change floodplain, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The boundary treatment shall be permeable to floodwater. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the scheme's timing/phasing arrangements. 19) No works (other than demolition) shall begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on the Location Plan (drawing no. 1100, rev. I , Phase 1 Ground Condition Assessment prepared by Stantec and dated January 2025 . Flood Risk Assessment (332612015, 07 February 2025, Stantec) , Surface Water Drainage Strategy (332612015/100/DSR, 07 February 2025, Stantec) and Response to LLFA Surface Water Drainage Strategy Comments (332612015/RMF/EE - PL/25/0354/FA, 07 May 2025, Stantec) has been submitted to a nd approved in writing by the local planning authority . The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include: • Assessment of SuDS components as listed in the CIRIA SuDS Manual (C753) and provide justification for exclusion if necessary • Demonstrate that water quality, ecological and amenity benefits have been considered • Water quality assessment demonstrating that the total pollution mitigation index equals or exceeds the pollution hazard index; priority should be given to above ground SuDS components • Undertake the clearance of overgrown vegetation within the second length of ditch to ensure water can flow unimpeded • Discharge from the site should be limited to 4.3l/s • Ground investigations including: • Infiltration in accordance with BRE365 • Groundwater level monitoring over the winter period (from November until April) • Subject to ground investigations demonstrating that infiltration is viable, the applicant shall amend the surface water drainage scheme to dispose of surface water runoff via infiltration • SuDS components agreed within the Proposed Surface Water Drainage Layout (drawing no. 49209/4001/003, rev. B) • Full construction details of all SuDS and drainage components • Detailed drainage layout with pipe numbers, gradients, and pipe sizes complete, together with storage volumes of all SuDS components Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 • Calculations to demonstrate that the proposed drainage system can contain up to the 1 in 30 storm event without flooding. Any onsite flooding between the 1 in 30 and the 1 in 100 plus climate change storm event should be safely contained on site • Details of proposed overland flood flow routes in the event of system exceedance or failure, with demonstration that such flows can be appropriately managed on site without increasing flood risk to occupants, or to adjacent or downstream sites 20) Prior to the occupation of the development a whole - life maintenance plan for the site must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The plan shall set out how and when to maintain the full drainage system (e.g. a maintenance schedule for each drainage/SuDS component), with details of who is to be responsible for carrying out the maintenance. The plan shall also include as as - built dr awings and/or photographic evidence of the drainage scheme carried out by a suitably qualified person. The plan shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 21) Prior to first occupation of the dwellings identified as Units C and D on drawing referenc e 5540 - 1211 - REV - H t he ground floor windows in those dwellings marked as HL on that drawing shall be fitted with obscured glazing in accordance with d etails submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning . O nce installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. End of schedule⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
conclusions on this development. 25. A neighbouring occupier has queried the accuracy of the red line on the application drawings. However, the appropriate ownership certificate was served on the neighbour advising of the development before the application was submitted. 26. A neighbour expressed concerns about w indows facing into their property over the shared boundary. These windows are existing and at a high level in the wall s , but would serve habitable rooms and bathrooms in units C and D. Where these windows would serve habitable rooms these would be dual - aspect or open plan rooms with other windows to provide outlook. Accordingly, a suitably worded c o ndition could ensure that these windows are retained as non - opening with obscured glazing to preserve the privacy of the neighbouring occupiers. While the neighbour also expressed concern about light from these windows there would be no change to their size or siting . This would therefore not resu lt in unacceptable harm to neighbour living conditions. 27. Interested parties raised concerns about the council’s handling of the application in relation to public consultation and the extent to which they sought the views o…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3375121 (Durham County Council) — 2026-05-29
📍 Durham County Council LPA code: E06000047 PINS reference: 3375121 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision No site visit undertaken by A Edgington BSc (Hons) MA CMLI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 th May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 The Bridge Inn, Whorlton, B arnard Castle DL 12 8XD • 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 Geo A Carter Ltd against the decision of Durham County Council. • The application Ref is DM/24/02793/FPA. • The development proposed is Change of use from public house to 1no. residential dwelling and erection of gate. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for c hange of use from public house to 1no. residential dwelling and erection of gate at The Bridge Inn, B arnard Castle DL12 8XD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DM/24/02793/FPA, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Applications for costs 2. The appellant has made an application for an award of costs. That is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matters 3. The Council’s reasons for refusal refer to Policy 6 f) of the County Durham Plan (CDP) . However, there is no apparent conflict with criterion f) in the officer’s report and the Council’s statement refers to criterion g). I conclude that th ere is a typographical error on the Council’s decision . C onsequently , I have focussed my reasoning on the conflict with CDP Policy 6 g). 4. The Bridge Inn (the Inn) w as nominated as an asset of community value in 2016. This listing expire d after five years and the Inn has not been re - listed. That former designation carries no weight in my reasoning. 5. I agreed with the parties prior to determination of the appeal that a site visit was not necessary . Main Issues 6. The main issue is whether the change of use of the Grade II listed Bridge Inn accords with local policy and national guidance , with particular regard to viability . Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Reasons Background 7. The Inn is a period and listed stone building located in the small rural settlement of Whorlton , a few miles to the south - east of Barnard Castle. The officer report sets out that there have been five different tenants since 2006 , and t he Inn has been closed for business since November 2023 . E ach tenancy has ended early and with the tenants in debt . Moreover, there have been periods of vacancy between each of those tenanc ies . 8. In July 2019 the nearby Whorlton Bridge , which provides the most direct link to the A66 to the south, was closed . At the time the Council expected it to be closed for around a year. In the summer of 2019 , the then te nant had had tenure since 2014, and had explored options such as bed and breakfast (B & B) and varied food offerings. Nonetheless, in September 2019 that tenant stated that the Inn’s takings had dropped by about 50 per cent and that the Inn would close. 9. The tenant attributed the loss of revenue to the closure of the bridge , which remains closed nearly seven years later. However, there are no financial records available to me to support th at assertion . As such I give th e argument that there is direct link between revenue , the termination of the tenancy and the bridge closure , limited weight. There has been another tenant since the bridge closure , but that tenancy lasted only two years . However, as noted above, there has been a history of short tenancies si nce 2006. 10. Shortly after the closure of the bridge, it appears that the appellant applied to convert the Inn ’s annexe to residential use. The reasoning put to the Council included the argument that a reduction in the Inn’s floorspace would reduce overheads and make the Inn a better business proposition . Releas ing capital from residential use would also enable upgrading work to the remaining area s of the I nn, and make the future business more manageable. I see no reason to conclude that the 2019 Viability Report (2019 VR) and its recommendations were not submitted in good faith . 11. The Council gave permission for the conversion, but raised a concern in relation to residential amenity sufficient to impose a condition prohibit ing the residential u se of the first floor of the Inn by anyone other than the tenant or persons involved in the management of the Inn 1 . The annexe has now been sold and is a separate planning unit. Viability 12. CDP Policy 6 g) states that development on unallocated sites will be p ermitted if it does not result in the loss of a settlem ent’s valued facil i ties or ser v ices , unless it has been demonstrated that they are no longer viable. The accompanying text states that to demo nstrate that a facility is not viable, evidence must be provided t h at the premises has been advertised as a going concern at least four times within a six month period and all reasonable offers explored. The evidence will be considered on a case by case basis. Policy W P6 of the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) states that existing amenities will be protected and all aven ues explored for their retention. 1 DM/19/03212/FPA Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 13. Both policies predate the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and in that regard the weight given to those policies shall be commensurate with their consistency with the Framework , in line with Paragraph 232 of that guidance. 14. At application the Council’s Spatial Policy team recommended that the Inn be marketed freehold for a period of three mo n ths to demonstrate that it is no longer viable. It was marketed as a rental property between December 2023 and October 2024, and has been marketed for sale since March 2025. Although there have been a few viewings, none has proceeded further. I see no reason to conclude that the tests for viability set out in CDP Policy 6 g) have not been met . Moreover, the Council’s evidence confirms that the y have. 15. Moreover, the appellant’s evidence includes the assessment s which have informed the valuations , and those figures are not disputed by the Council. In any case, i rrespective of the bridge closure, the tenancy turnover and periods of vacancy before July 2019 suggest that the re were issues with the profitability of the business model well before that date. 16. The Council notes that there has been inconsistency in the appellant’s arguments regarding viability , as the reduction in floorspace, used to support the 2019 application to convert the annexe, now limits further opportunities for diversification. However, although the 2019 Viability Report ( 2019 VR) sets out that there would be three bedrooms available for paying guests, t hat subsequent permission restricts residential use of the Inn ’s first floor for anyone other than the tenant or other manager . The prov ision of visitor accommodation was not a determinative factor in the granting of that permission. 17. Moreover the 2024 Viability Report (2024 VR) identifies issues with security and a lack of separation between potential l ettable rooms and the landlord’s accommodat ion . There are two sets of floor plans in the evidence which are inconsistent with each ot her with regard to room size and proportions. Nonetheless, it is apparent that using any rooms on the first floor for visitors would restrict the tenant’s options for living accommodation . The 2024 VR also s uggests that using the Inn for visitors would result in the tenant having to seek separate accommodation, which would incur additional cost. 18. The 2019 VR states that ‘ the leasehold market continues to reflect the difficulty in identifying tenants who have funding as well as the ability to operate a business, especially one which is in a rural location and food - led . I agree with the appellant that since 2019 there has been a succession of global economic shocks, which could not have been foreseen, and which are likely to have an adverse effect on the hospitality industry to a greater or lesser extent. In any case, even if there has been a failure to pursue other opportunities since 2019, in the absence of any enforcement mechanism, this carries no weight in the determination of th is appeal. 19. Underlying trends are also identified in the 2024 VR which notes an ongoing decrease in wet sales which pre - dates the pandemic, as well as an increasing tendency for small public houses, including the Inn during its last tenanted period , to open on a part - time basis to maintain profitability. 20. The last tenancy, of two years duration, may reflect a harsh economic reality. Although the highway authority notes that around 300 veh icles crossed the bridge daily before it closed, there is nothing before me t o indicate ho w many of those vehicles were carrying customers , or at what times . There is no certainty the Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 bridge’s reopening would support a new business model. In any case, although there is no direct link southwards from Whorlton to the A66, there are other bridges not too far away . I find the weight given by the Council and the community objectors to the bridge closure in relation to the Inn’s viability , to be overstated and unsupported by any evidence . 21. Moreover, the reopening of the bridge , originally scheduled for 2020, has been repeatedly postponed . The appellant is losing rent , has had a listed period building to maintain and has sustained high costs associated with tenancy turnover for the last twenty years . Even if I agreed that the bridge closure is directly responsible for the inability for the Inn to operate as a viable business, i t seems unrealistic to expect any business to weather that kind of loss over such a long period without wishing to pu rsue a new business plan. 22. It is also unrealistic to suggest that the appellant has selected tenants who were not suited to the role and that this might have contributed to the lack of profitability. Tenants are a self - selecting group , and the appellant’s evidence clearly h ighlight s the difficulty of finding suitable candidates in the face of a changing customer base . Moreover, i t seems to me that th e B & B options were never particularly realistic . E ven if the residency condition was removed , the lettable rooms are directly above th e main ground floor rooms of the Inn . Although others might offer suggestions as to what different food offerings might attract visitors, the 2024 VR sets out the extensive range of food offerings and price ranges offered by the last tenant and states that the Inn received very good food reviews. In any case, it is up to the tenant to decide how to manage th e business and bring in sufficient revenue. 23. I appreciate that there is local support for a public house that contributes to village life as an informal drop - in . I also acknowl e dge that the village hall is not a like for like replacement . However, it remains that there is a licensed village hall , available for community events. The Inn is a primarily a business venture , albeit one which also makes a contribution to community life. However, its community function is wholly dependent on its viability. Whorlton Community Benefit Society 24. A local community group, the Whorlton Community Benefit Society (WCBS) explored purchasing or leasing the Inn and commissioned a surveyors’ report 2 in that regard. The valuation in June 2025 was £230,000, considerably less than the current price on the open market. 25. This report sets out marketing and turnover data for public houses in North Yorkshire which vary wildly in location, proximity to trunk roads, floor area and turnover. It is unclear what conclusions I am expected to reach from this information . Moreover, the report states that the Inn remains on the ACV listing , which is incorrect . 26. There are nonetheless two comparable situation s set out in this report . One is the marketing for the All Fours in nearby Ovington. Its floor area is smaller than the Inn, and it opens on a part - time basis. Nonetheless, this is being marketed at a freehold price of £295,000. T he report states that the Inn would be able to increase turnover to double that of the All Fours. However, the Inn was also opening on a part - time basis when last tenanted, as a means of reducing costs. Given the marketing price 2 Fleurets, June 2025 Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 of £295,000 for the All Fours, it is unclear to me why the Inn is valued at only £230,000 in this report. 27. This report also sets out marketing details for The Bridgewater Arms at Winston, which is another village close to the River Tees and located between the A67 and the A66 trunk roads. This has a little more floor area than the Inn but has sold for £390,000. I agree with the appellant that these public houses are comparably located to the Inn , and likely to attract a similar customer base. There is a broad consistency in the price per square foot . A pplying that price per square foot to the Inn , results in a figure broadly similar to the price at which the Inn has been marketed by the appellant since 2025. As such I conclude that the price of £230,000 for purchase , or a concomitant rental price, would not reflect market value. Consequently , the WCBS’s arguments that the Inn is being marketed at an unrealistically high price , carry no weight in my reasoning. Conclusion – Financial Viability 28. I conclude that the re were issues with profitability l ong before the closure of the bridge or the conversion of the annexe. The proposed conversion accords with local policy and national guidance and consequently there is no conflict with CDP Policy 6 g) or WP6 with regard to the tests for viability and potential diversification options . I appreciate that Paragraphs 88d) , and 98 c) and d) of the Framework are concerned with the safeguarding of community facilities , but this is secondary to viability and in this case the required tests have been met. In any case, the policies cited are slightly more restrictive than the Framework with regard to the safeguarding of community facilities. Even had I found a degree of conflict with the local development plan , I would have given those policies less than full weight. H eritage 29. The Inn dates from the early 19 th century and is a handsome if somewhat pla in two - storey sandstone building , with a flat elevation and multi - paned sash windows , located in a prominent position on the main road through the village . Its significance arises from its intact historic fabric which is typical of period buildings in this rural area , and its social and communal value as a public house in a rural community. 30. The development would include internal works which have been granted listed building consent. Externally, the Council has raised a concern in relation to a proposed gate and section of wall , but has concluded that t hese concerns could be addressed through conditions. I see no reason to disagree. 31. The village is a collection of stone and largely period buildings set back from the road and arranged around a large village green. The Inn makes a highly positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area , and this would be unaffected in the event that the appeal is allowed. 32. The Inn is listed as such on the Historic England website . I acknowledge that there would be some minor loss of significance to the listed building and conservation area , with regard to its social and communal value . This amounts to less than substantial harm, at the lower end of the spectrum. However, without a viable use the building will deteriorate . Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm, th at harm should be weighed against the pub lic benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 securing its optimum viable use. In this case , I conclude that the Inn’s optimum viable use is as a dwelling. 33. As such, the benefits arising from an ongoing viable use and the provision of a dwelling, as well as the ongoing maintenance of a listed building outweigh the reduction of significance and the loss of the Inn’s former community function. The minor conflict with S ections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 would be outweighed by public benefits. Other Matters 34. The Council has h ighted an appeal relating to The Pheasant Inn, Shropshire 3 where the Ins pector found that the owners had not made sufficient effort to explore diversification options. However , that appeal is of some age, the premises had a far greater floor area with more opportunities for diversification, and it is also in a different part of the country . The appeal was determined within a very different economic and legislative framework . As such it is not comparable to what is before me . Moreover, there is no evidence provided to support the Council’s assertion that it is still thriving as a business. 35. Interested parties have raised concerns that previous tenants were insufficiently vetted before being given the tenancy, or were in some way uns uitable . However, i t is unrealistic and unreasonable to pose hypothetical situation s in which other tenants might have made more of a success of running the Inn. I have no information with regard to the appellant’s personal or business circumstances but it is also unreasonable to suggest that they take over the running of the Inn directly . In any case , it seems highly u nlikely that tenants would not explore al l options for a higher turnover rather than lose their investment and the tena ncy . 36. The WCBS also sets out that the single two year tenancy since the bridge closure is insufficient time to trial diversification. However , this seems a reasonable period to me , particularly as the 2024 VR sets out that the tenancy benefited from significantly discounted rent . I acknowledge that there may be community owned public ho uses elsewhere . However, no examples are provided and in any case , there is no unused space at the Inn to dedicate to shops , social clubs or post offices. Moreover , the village has a village hall. Nor has the WCBS set out any detail of its own business model or information to support its contention that another landlord would find the operating profit acceptable. 37. The WCBS sets out that the appellant was obstructive to their attempts to pursue due diligence. I am unable to conclude either way in this regard , but it remains that the underlying dispute with the WCBS is based on the appellant’s valuation , and in this case , I am satisfied that that is reasonable. Whilst I acknowledge that the group has made a considerable effort to retain the Inn as a community facility, I do not find the appellant’ s valuations, or efforts to find a solution with the group , unreasonable. 38. My attention has also been drawn to an unsuccessful appeal for change of use at the Dog and Gun Inn, Auton Stile 4 . This was a retrospective application for a change of use from a public house to workspace and bar/restaurant/café/retail use. The appeal decision notes that it was in an accessible location with public transport 3 APP/L3245/A/13/2192177 4 APP/X1355/W/25/3359018 Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 links and nearby shops, which suggests a very different locational context from what is before me. The premises was also operational. The appeal is not comparable to what is before me. 39. A great deal of weight has been given to the contention that when the bridge opens the Inn would be accessible to a far greater customer base and that this would radically change the Inn’s profitability . However , there are other bridges linking the A66 and the A67 , and the diversion required over the Tees does not seem too extensive to me. Moreover, some of the people who signed the petition appear to live in Barnard Castle or other villages, and would not be particularly affected by the bridge closure. I a ccept that there may be a loss of casual passing trade , but this has not been quantified . A large proportion of the vehicles crossing the bridge before closure are likely to be commuters and normal business journeys. 40. I appreciate that there is strong feeling locally r egarding the loss of the Inn as a public house. The argument is advanced that the valuations provided are too high, and that with a different operating model and lower rents, the Inn would be viable. However, on the basis of what is before me I am unable to agree. The Inn can only provide a community facility if it is a viable business. I am satisfied that that is no longer the case. Conditions 41. The Council has suggested conditions and where appropriate I have amended the text in line with best practice . I have imposed the standard time and drawings condition for the avoidance of doubt. Conditions are also imposed to ensure the proposed gate and a new section of stone wall are in keeping with the period property to safeguard the setting of the listed building , and the character and appearance of the conservation area. 42. The Council has suggested that the condition relating to the timber gate include the text ‘rece ived 24.10.2024’. I have two existing and proposed side elevation drawings before me, one titled superseded , and one which is annotated . There is nothing before me to indicate which was received on 24 October 2024. However, I have indicated in the condition that the approved drawing is annotated. Conclusion 43. I have concluded that the Inn is no longer viable as a public house . Not withstanding the harm arising from the l oss of some community and social value, as well as minor harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, that loss would be outweighed by the listed building’s continued upkeep and its future occupation as a residence . 44. There is no conflict with the local development plan or the Framework , and no material considerations of such weight to lead me to conclude other than that the appeal should be allowed. A Edgington INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years after the date of this permission. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried ou t in accordance with the following plans: Site Location Plan Existing and Prop osed Block Plan Existing and Pr op o sed Floor Plan Existing and Proposed Front Elevations Existing and Prop os ed Rear Elevation Existing and Proposed Side Elevation , ( with annotations identifying the existing and proposed gates and wall). 3. The proposed gate sh all in materials , dimensions and overall design, replicate the ‘ e xisting 5 bar timber gate ’ shown on the drawing Existing and Proposed Side Elevation . 4. The e xtended stone wall shall be formed using coursed random size natural stone with pointing to match the existing. N o development of the extension of the stone wall shall commence until a sample panel of the propos ed stone and pointing to be used in its cons truction has been erected on site and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved sam ple panel shall thereafter be retained for reference on site through out its construction and the develop ment shall be constructed in accordance w ith the approved sample panel.⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Conclusion 43. I have concluded that the Inn is no longer viable as a public house . Not withstanding the harm arising from the l oss of some community and social value, as well as minor harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, that loss would be outweighed by the listed building’s continued upkeep and its future occupation as a residence . 44. There is no conflict with the local development plan or the Framework , and no material considerations of such weight to lead me to conclude other than that the appeal should be allowed. A Edgington
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3350509 (London Borough of Merton) — 2026-05-29
📍 London Borough of Merton LPA code: E09000024 PINS reference: 3350509 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning- inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 May 2026 by Robert Naylor BSc (Hons) MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/T5720/C/24/3350509 45 Gladstone Road, London SW19 1QU • The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the 1990 Act) as amended. AdobeUCS &&(()),,--..//0011223344558899AABBCCDDEEIIJJLLMMOOPPSS[[]]aabbccddeeffgghhiikkllmmnnoopprrssttuuvvww••yy” • The appeal is made by Mr Philippe Fezans against an enforcement notice issued by the Council of the London Borough of Merton. • The notice was issued on 19 July 2024. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission and within the last four years, the erection of a roof extension including hip- to - gable, 2 rear dormers and the raising of the roof ridgeline. • The requirements of the notice are: (a) Permanently reduce the ridgeline to its original height prior to the breach of planning control as shown on the photo as appendix LBM1. (b) Permanently remove from the Land all materials, rubbish and debris associated with compliance arising from step 5 (a) above. • The period for compliance with the requirements is: within 3 months from the date this notice takes effect. • The appeal is proceeding on the ground set out in section 174(2)(a) of the 1990 Act (as amended). Since an appeal has been brought on ground (a), an application for planning permission is deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the Act. Formal Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed and planning permission is granted on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act (as amended) for the development already carried out, namely the erection of a roof extension including hip- to - gable, 2 rear dormers and the raising of the roof ridgeline at 45 Gladstone Road, London SW19 1QU . Preliminary Matters 2. Since the Council issued the enforcement notice, the new Merton Local Plan 20 24 \226 2037/38 ( M LP) has been adopted in November 2024. As such, I have taken it into account in my decision. Appeal under ground (a), the deemed planning application Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the retention of the roof extension on the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene ; and whether it preserves or enhances the adjacent Bertram Cottages conservation area ( BC CA). Reasons Character and appearance and impact on the BCCA 4. The significance of the BCCA is principally derived from special architectural - artistic merit. The cottages are built of London stock brick with slate roofs and Appeal Decision APP/T5720/C/24/3350509 https://www.gov.uk/planning- inspectorate 2 white painted timber framed windows and doors. Chimney stacks of London stock separate each pair, with many of the cottages retaining original features. The cottages are two storeys, arranged in symmetrical pairs, most pairs sharing a central projecting ga ble end, which houses the front entrance. At the first floor level the gables exhibit blank brickwork decorated with a diagonal pattern in red brick. 5. R esidential development continues beyond the BCCA to the north and south, on the eastern side of Gladstone Road and the western side of Hartfield Road, the latter also including larger scale commercial properties. The appeal site is sited in Gladstone Road which is located within a short distance to the main commercial area of Wimbledon town centre. Whilst the appeal site adjoins the BCCA, it is nevertheless located outside the BCCA boundary as shown on the submitted conservation area map and confirmed by t he Council in their questionnaire. 6. The appeal site is a semi - detached property with a traditional appearance, which is similar in scale and age to Bertram Cottages . Nevertheless, the boundaries are clearly delineated because of the unique character of Bertram Cottages themselves, the only exception being at the south- west corner of the conservation a rea, where a pair of 19th century houses, Nos. 112 to 114 Hartfield Road, have also been included. 7. The appellant applied for planning permission1 in December 2022 for the conversion of the roof space and raising the ridge height. In terms of the height increase at the ridge this amounted to 25cm in order that usable headroom was obtained within the roof extension. The Council refused th e application, consider ing the scale, design, form and raising of the ridge height, failed to preserve or enhance the adjacent BCCA , and harmed the character of the host dwelling and street scene . 8. The appellant redesigned the roof conversion, including lower ing the ceilings internally in order that the development would meet with the \221permitted development\222 (PD) requirements of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO). This w as constructed prior to obtaining a lawful development certificate (LDC) . 9. The appellant subsequently sought a n LDC2 under section 191 of the 1990 Act (as amended) following the completion of the works, for an existing gable and dormer loft conversion. However, during the construction phase the provision of modern ridge tiles created a minor increase of approximately 5cm above the original ridgeline. Both parties acknowledge that the development as constructed exceed t he tolerance of PD as set out in the GPDO. The question, therefore, is whether the development as constructed would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property, the street scene and the setting of the adjoining BCCA. 10. Paragraph 219 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires new development within the setting of conservation a reas to enhance or better reveal its significance. The Framework defines the setting of a heritage asset as \223 the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced.\224 1 London Borough of Merton Planning Ref: 22/P3698 2 London Borough of Merton Planning Ref: 24/P0508 Appeal Decision APP/T5720/C/24/3350509 https://www.gov.uk/planning- inspectorate 3 11. The B ertram Cottages Boundary Assessment3 highlights that the houses beyond the north and south boundaries in Gladstone Road (including the appeal site) , are terraced or semi - detached, two storey 19th century houses of conventional design, with ground floor bay windows and other features which are found in many of the streets surrounding Wimbledon town centre and in other parts of south London. As such, they do not appear to be sufficiently distinctive to merit inclusion within the conservation area. Many of these properties have also been subject to external alterations at ground floor and roof levels. 12. During my site visit I noted several rear dormer and other roof extensions of varying sizes and forms in G lad stone Road just outside the BCCA . Case law4 has established that proposals must be judged according to their effect on a conservation area as a whole and must therefore have a moderate degree of prominence. 13. G iven the tight nature of the properties in Gladstone Road and the BCCA , views of the rear from public vantage points are extremely restricted and limited to glimpses only. Nevertheless, w hilst the rear elevations are not as prominent as the front, m any of the other roof extensions in Gladstone Road also appear to have raised the ridgeline. This feature is more visible and prominent from the front and street scene . Whilst I have not been provided with the planning history in respect to these developments, they do provide variation to the ridgelines outside the BCCA. By contrast, the minor increase of the ridgeline at the appeal site relative to these others is almost imperceptible . 14. Given that the properties outside the BCCA boundary, are not considered to be sufficiently distinctive to merit inclusion within the conservation area, these relatively minor alterations at roof level , in my view, do not detract from the Gladstone Road street scene or the architectural interest and thus the significance of the BCCA . 15. Whilst I acknowledge that the development at the appeal site is larger than allowed under PD , th e minor increase to the ridgeline is relatively innocuous . Furthermore, the design of the development is read within the context of the existing area, and the development does not appear as an incongruous feature. As a result, the alterations to the roof subject to this appeal cause no harm to the character, appearance or significance of the BC CA, and are compatible with the local character, building proportions, form, materials and detailing. 16. The development at the very least preserves the character and appearance of the host property, street scene and the adjoining BC CA. The development therefore accords with the relevant provisions of M LP policies D12.1, D12.4 and D12.5; policy D4 of the London Plan, adopted March 2021; and the Framework. Collectively, these require development to be inclusive, sustainable, efficient and of a high quality of design to maintain the existing buildings across the urban and suburban environment , alongside the prot ection of heritage assets , amongst other things. Conclusion on ground (a) 3 Dated 10/2025 4 South Oxfordshire DC v SSE & J Donaldson [1991] CO/1440/89 Appeal Decision APP/T5720/C/24/3350509 https://www.gov.uk/planning- inspectorate 4 17. Overall, the development will not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property, the street scene nor setting of the BCCA . The development would therefore conform with the intentions of the relevant policies in the Local Plan and the Framework as detailed above. Conditions 18. Given that the proposal is retrospective and is acceptable in terms of design and materiality, there is no need to attach the standard time limit, approved plans or a materials condition. Overall Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal succeed s on ground (a). I shall grant planning permission for the development as described in the notice . The enforcement notice will be quashed. Robert Naylor INSPECTOR⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
16. The development at the very least preserves the character and appearance of the host property, street scene and the adjoining BC CA. The development therefore accords with the relevant provisions of M LP policies D12.1, D12.4 and D12.5; policy D4 of the London Plan, adopted March 2021; and the Framework. Collectively, these require development to be inclusive, sustainable, efficient and of a high quality of design to maintain the existing buildings across the urban and suburban environment , alongside the prot ection of heritage assets , amongst other things. Conclusion on ground (a) 3 Dated 10/2025 4 South Oxfordshire DC v SSE & J Donaldson [1991] CO/1440/89 Appeal Decision APP/T5720/C/24/3350509 https://www.gov.uk/planning- inspectorate 4 17. Overall, the development will not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property, the street scene nor setting of the BCCA . The development would therefore conform with the intentions of the relevant policies in the Local Plan and the Framework as detailed above. Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal succeed s on ground (a). I shall grant planning permission for the developme…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3370001 (Cornwall Council) — 2026-05-28
📍 Cornwall Council LPA code: E06000052 PINS reference: 3370001 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 April 2026 by K Reeves BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/W/25/3370001 Land West of Lowenna, Pentreath Lane, Praa Sands, Penzance TR20 9AD • The appeal is made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant permission in principle. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs M Laity against the decision of Cornwall Council. • The application Ref is PA25/03739. • The development proposed is c onstruction of m inimum 6, m aximum 8 d wellings & a ssociated w orks . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the construction of minimum 6, maximum 8 dwellings and associated works at Land West of Lowenna , Pentreath Lane, Praa Sands, Penzance , TR20 9AD , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/03739 . Preliminary Matter 2. The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing - led development. The permission in principle consent route has two stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in - principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages. 3. The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent t echnical d etails c onsent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly. Main Issue 4. The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Corn wall National Landscape (CNL). Reasons 5. The appeal site lies within the South Coast Western section of the CNL. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that great weight be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended) places a statutory duty on decision - makers to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of such areas. Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3370001 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 6. The site occupies a transitional position between the built edge of Newtown and the more open countryside to the south and west. The A394 forms a strong physical and visual boundary and is used in the updated Cornwall Character Areas (CCA07) as the dividin g line between character areas. The immediate roadside environment includes a bus stop, footway, utilities cabinets, signage and parked vehicles. Existing dwellings lie opposite and to the east. As such, the site does not exhibit the more strongly expresse d qualities of the CNL, which are experienced further south and along the coastline. 7. The proposal would introduce up to eight dwellings on land that is currently undeveloped. This would extend built form beyond the existing settlement edge and result in an urbanising encroachment into the countryside. The change from undeveloped land to built development would be perceptible from the A394 and would reduce the sense of openness at this point. I therefore find that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and to the CNL. 8. However, the degree of harm must be understood in its landscape context. The site occupies the very northern extremity of the CNL, where the special qualities of the designation (coastal scenery, undeveloped cliffed landscapes and sweeping open plateau) ar e not strongly expressed. It also has a stronger visual and functional relationship with the developed group of buildings along this section of the A394 corridor than with the more sensitive undeveloped landscape to the south. As a result, the site’s contr ibution to the special qualities of the CNL is limited. 9. The harm would also be localised. Views of the site are largely limited to short - range glimpses from the A394 and nearby roads, while public rights of way to the south sit at lower levels, further restricting visibility. Where it is seen, any development w ould be read within the established linear pattern of built form along the A394. The site’s generous size provides scope to position buildings behind new hedgerows and strengthened retained hedge boundaries, thereby softening their presence in the wider la ndscape. 10. For these reasons, although the landscape harm would be moderate and localised, the proposal would nonetheless result in material harm to the character and appearance of the CNL . Consequently, it conflicts with Policies 2, 3, 12, 21c and 23 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 – 2030, Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency D evelopment P lan D ocument ( 2023 ) , P olicy 1 of the Cornwall Site Allocations Development Plan Document ( 2019) and Policy S2 of the Breage Neighbourhood Development Plan 2017 – 2030 , which collectively require development to conserve and enhance landscape character and protect the scenic beauty and special qualities of the CNL. 11. The proposal also conflicts with Policies PD - P1, PD - P2 and PD - P11 of the Cornwall Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2022 – 2027 , which require that all change within the CNL is landscape - led and conserve s and enhance s natural beauty by protecting landscape and seascape character and ensuring that any development is sensitively designed, small - scale and avoids harm to the CNL. Planning Balance 12. The Council confirms that it cannot demonstrate a five - year supply of deliverable housing sites and it therefore follows that the development plan policies are Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3370001 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 deemed to be out - of - date for the purposes of Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework. In these circumstances, Paragraph 11(d) states that permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. National Landscapes are an example of such areas/assets. 13. As established , the proposal would result in moderate, localised landscape harm, the site makes only a limited contribution to the special qualities of the CNL and the integrity and purpose of the designation would remain intact. As such, t he harm to the CNL does not amount to a strong reason for refusal for the purposes of P aragraph 11(d) and footnote 7 of the Framework . 14. Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework also indicates that, when the development plan policies are deemed to be out - of - date , planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole, with particular regard to certain specified policies. 15. The proposal would deliver between six and eight dwellings in an affordable - led scheme . The Council’s Affordable Housing Officer confirms that 93 households in Breage Parish are seeking affordable accommodation. This is a parish heavily constrained by designations, including the CNL and the World Heritage Site, limiting opportunities for conventional growth. The delivery of affordable housing in this context c arries substantial weight . 16. The site lies on the edge of Newtown, a recognised settlement with public transport links along the A394. The Breage Neighbourhood Development Plan acknowledges Newtown’s connectivity. Paragraph 73 of the Framework emphasises the importance of small and medium - sized sites in meeting housing needs and supporting small and medium sized builders, noting that such sites are often built out quickly. These factors attract significant weight . 17. There would also be modest economic benefits during construction and from future occupiers’ expenditure, and social benefits from supporting the vitality of a rural settlement in line with P aragraph 83 of the Framework. 18. Set against these benefits is the moderate, localised landscape harm identified, to which great weight is given in accordance with the Framework . However, in discharging the statutory duty under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, I am satisfied that the purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the CNL can be furthered as far as possible at the technical det ails stage. In particular, the scope to strengthen the existing hedgerows and to secure a landscape - led layout w ould allow the residual harm to be limited through careful and sensitive detailed design. 19. In the context of a confirmed shortfall in the five - year housing land supply, a clear and pressing local affordable housing need and the limited contribution this particular site makes to the special qualities of the CNL, the adverse impacts of granting pe rmission in principle would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out at Paragraph 11 of the Framework applies. Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3370001 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 20. The Framework is government policy and therefore carries substantial weight. As the most important development plan policies for determining the appeal are deemed to be out of date, I give greater weight to the policies of the Framework. This indicates tha t a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Conditions 21. The PPG sets out that it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle. I have therefore not considered such matters in the determination of this appeal. Conclusion 22. For the reasons given above, the proposal conflict s with the development plan, but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed and permission in principle granted. K Reeves INSPECTOR⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
In particular, the scope to strengthen the existing hedgerows and to secure a landscape - led layout w ould allow the residual harm to be limited through careful and sensitive detailed design. 19. In the context of a confirmed shortfall in the five - year housing land supply, a clear and pressing local affordable housing need and the limited contribution this particular site makes to the special qualities of the CNL, the adverse impacts of granting pe rmission in principle would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out at Paragraph 11 of the Framework applies. Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3370001 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 20. The Framework is government policy and therefore carries substantial weight. As the most important development plan policies for determining the appeal are deemed to be out of date, I give greater weight to the policies of the Framework. This indicates tha t a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Conditions 21. The PPG sets out that it is not possible for Conc…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3376539 (Bedford Borough Council) — 2026-05-26
📍 Bedford Borough Council LPA code: E06000055 PINS reference: 3376539 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Hearing held on 28 April 2026 Site visit made on 2 9 April 2026 by E Catcheside BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 nd May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 Land to the E ast of Duck End Lane, Wilstead Grid Reference Easting: 506245, Grid Reference Northing: 244034 • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Kler Group Limited against Bedford Borough Council. • The application reference is 24/01566/MAO. • The development proposed is: Outline application with all matters reserved, except access, for the erection of up to 149 dwellings and associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for outline application with all matters reserved, except access, for the erection of up to 149 dwellings and associated works at Land to the E ast of Duck End Lane, Wilstead (Grid Reference Easting: 506245, Grid Reference Northing: 244034) in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 24/01566/MAO, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. The application sought outline permission , with all matters reserved except for access. Appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale are reserved matters to be considered through future applications. 3. In addition to the approved plans listed in condition 1 , a ‘Parameter Plan’ is provided which shows the areas for development and the area s for public open space and countryside edge buffers , as well as the maximum heights of buildings. It is proposed that a condition would require reserved matters applications to come forward in accordance with the details shown on the Parameter Plan and I have considered the appeal on this basis . However, b ecause layout is a reserved matter, I have treated the layout deta ils shown on t he Parameter Plan as illustrative rather than fixed . For the avoidance of doubt, I have also considered the Indicative Masterplan to be i llustrative only . 4. Although the planning application was considered by the Council’s Planning Committee, the appeal was submitted before the Council had issued its formal decision . Therefore, the appeal is made on the basis that the Council fail ed to determine the planning application with in the prescribed time period. I have considered the Council’s putative reason for refusal in identifying the main issue. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 5. The putative reason for refusal refers to the space between Wilstead and Wixhams as a “strategic gap” , which is the terminology used in the Wilshamstead Neighbourhood Plan (WNP). At the hearing, the parties agreed that the “strategic gap” has the same meaning as the “local gap” referenced in Policy AD42 of the Allocations and Designations Local Plan (July 2013) (ADLP) which is the only adopted development plan policy re lating to the gap between the settlements . I have referred to the gap throughout this dec ision as a “local gap” to reflect the wording in Policy AD42. However, I have also had regard to the objectives of the WNP and the associated commentary and mapping information relating to “strategic gap s ”, includ ing at Appendix A of the WNP . 6. A draft S106 agreement was discussed at the hearing , and a completed and executed version of the agreement was provided shortly after the event . A revised agreed schedule of conditions was also provided after the hearing, which sought to address issues raised during the discussions at the event. I shall set out my approach to the planning obligation and the conditions later in this decision . Main Issue 7. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the local gap designation and on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons Background and context 8. The appeal site comprises a n arable field, located between Cawne Close on the edge of Wilstead and Duck End Lane . B edford Road borders the site to the southwest, beyond which there are fields and then the A6 road which heads north to Bedford . The village extends roughly southwards and eastwards from Cawne Close , whilst land to the northeast and east of the site comprises mainly fields interspersed with hedgerows and pockets of woodland. Th is large - scale landscape with expansive views is characteristic of the East Marston Clay Vale s 1 that surround Wilstead and forms a key part of its rural setting. 9. There are a few dwellings and some commercial buildings on Duck End Lane . Together with the short ribbon of homes nearby on Bedford Road, th e dwellings near to the Duck End Lane junction form an area known as “Duck End”. Duck End is separated from the A6 and its roundabout junction with Bedford Road by fields. 10. Appendix A of the WNP explains the role of the appeal site in maintaining the traditional form of the village by separating the heart of Wilstead from Duck End, which , as an “End” cluster of dwellings was once a separate hamlet . The farmland character of the appeal site contributes further to the rural identity of Wilstead ; and the absence of buildings within the site allow s for long - reaching views from the village across the wider landscape towards the historic Cardington Hangers, which is identified as a key view in the text of the WNP. The site, therefore, makes a valuable contribution to the hist oric, rural character and the identi t y of Wilstead . 11. The plan appended to the Council’s Landscape Appeal Statement shows that Wixhams , a new settlement of up to 4500 dwellings with a town centre and community facilities , will occupy a large area of land on the other side of the A6 , extending westwards to the railway line . At the time of my site visit, the planned 1 As described in the Bedford Borough Landscape Character Assessment (May 2014, Updated October 2020) Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 area of Wixams that lies closest to the A6 , and therefore to Wilstead, w as at an advanced stage of construction . 12. At the hearing, the parties agreed that the extract from the Local Plan 2030 (BBLP ) and the ADLP Policies Map as it is shown in the Council’s Statement of Case should be relied upon to identify the L ocal G ap between Wilstead and Wixhams as it is designated in the ADLP. The parties agree that the gap, measured along a straight line roughly from Cawne Close , through the appeal site, to the A6 south of the roundabout is 725m. This aligns with the accompanying text to Policy AD42 of the ADLP, which refers to th e gap as “ less than 800m ” . 13. Appendix A of the WNP seeks to provide further defin ition as to the parcels that make up the protected gap between the two settlements. These parcels include most, albeit not all, of the undeveloped land between the A6 road and Wilstead to the west and northwest of the village . Parcels “SG2”, “SG3” and “SG4” encompass land between Bedford Road and the A6 road; whereas parcels “SG1” and the appeal site (parcel “SG5”) are located to the north of Bedford Road and encapsulate land between Duck End Lane and the A6 and between Wilstead and Duck End Lane , respectively . 14. Policy AD42 of the ADLP states that development will not be permitted in a local gap which, because of the nature of the proposal: i. diminishes the gap physically or visually; or ii. changes its character adversely; or iii. compromises the inte grity of the gap, either individually or cumulatively with other existing or proposed development; or iv. harms the character, setting or identity of any settlements separated by the gap. 15. The accompanying text to Policy AD42 explains that the objectives of the policy are to prevent the coalescence of settlements, to maintain the predominantly open and undeveloped character of the gap, and to protect the separate character and identity of se ttlements including their setting. Effects of the proposal 16. T he development would elongate the built - up area of Wilstead in a north - westerly direction , bringing it closer to the boundary of Wixams . Thus, the size of the gap between the two settlements would be physically diminished . 17. Moreover, the depletion of the wide, undeveloped space between Wilstead and Duck End would alter the visual and perceptual experience of the Local Gap when moving along Bedford Road in either direction. The change would be particularly noticeable when approaching Wilstead from Wixhams, where the development would come into view when passing the Duck End properties on Bedford Road . Moving in the opposite direction, the experience of being within a built - up area would be extended until a point near to Duck En d Lane . This is because the buil ding s and infrastructure associated with up to 1 49 dwellings would , in all reasonable likelihood, be of a scale and density that w ould be apparent through the site access and in views over and through the roadside landscaping . Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 18. It follows that the sense of arriving at or departing from Wilstead would occur at a point that is much closer to Wixhams than is currently the case. There would, therefore, be some depletion of the Local Gap in visual and perceptual terms . 19. That said, there would still be a broad area of undeveloped space between the new built - up edge of Wilstead and the A6, with Wixams further b eyond that . Indeed, the width and verdancy of the other undeveloped spaces beside this part of Bedford Road , notably those within parcels SG1, SG2 , SG3 , and SG4, would ensure the preservation of a clear gap between Wilstead and Wixhams , which would be experienced when moving between the A6 underpass and Wilstead on foot or by bicycle, or when travelling in a vehicle between Wilstead and the A6 roundabout. The curvature of Bedford Road would further assist in safeguard ing the Local Gap , because it would impede inter visibility between the development and the area near to the A6 underpass . 20. Views of the development from the Public Right of Way (PRoW) 3 to the south of Vicarage Farm would be limited due to the presence of intervening buildings, trees, and hedgerows. Furthermore, the footpath here crosses a series of fields and the A6 road and , given the distance between the nearest properties on Bedford Road and th ose in Wixams, the footpath has the character of a countryside walk between two settlements. This character would not be altered by the proposal due to its siting on the other side of Bedf ord Road , and the sense of separation between Wilstead and Wixams from PRoW 3 would be retained. 21. Due to the intervening fields and hedgerows, the development would have a discrete presence in long - distance views from the footpath network to the north - east of the site , such that there would be no harm caused to the character of the landscape beyond the local level . I t would have greater prominence in shorter distance views , specifically from PRoW 13 beyond the end of Duck End Lane. The built form of Wixams is also apparent from th is vantage point. However, so too is the undeveloped landscape between and around the settlements that would be unaffected by the proposal. Consequently, there would be no sense from PRoW 13 of Wilstead and Wixams coming together as one entity even though the development would be visible within the landscape . 22. Even though landscaping is proposed, the erection of up to 149 homes with associated infrastructure would harmfully urbanise the appeal site and there would be some loss of visual connectivity between the nearest parts of the village and the wider landscape. Moreover, w hilst the proposed open space would ensure th e retention of a gap between the new development and Duck End , the existing space would be significantly reduce d, and it would be particularly narrow ed where the rear boundary of Dove Cottage cut s into the appeal site field . Consequently, the sense of Wilstead and Duck End as historically discrete entities would be less pronounced tha n is currently the case. Overall, the proposal would have a localised yet eroding effect on the rural character and historic identity of Wilstead. 23. The proposed layout of the development is not before me at this outline stage. However, the developable area shown on the Parameter Plan would allow for the built form to extend further beyond the northern edge of Wilstead than the proposed layout for 95 homes on land north of Cotton End Road 2 . However, w hilst much of the development in the village fronts the through routes of Bedford Road, 2 Granted under outline p lanning permission number 24/02231/MAO Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 Luton Road, and Cotton End Road, this is not universally the case. I observed some parts of the village that extend deeply from the se main routes, including the area around Whitworth Way . Therefore, I see no reason why a detailed layout could not come forward in a manner that responds positively to the layout of existing dwellings in the village. 24. Overall, whilst the Local Gap would retain integrity s o that the proposal would not cause the coalescence of Wilstead and Wixhams , it would be diminished physically and visually and there would be adverse changes to its character. Moreover, the encroachment of the site into the countryside setting of Wilstead and the erosion of the separation space between Wilstead and Duck End would cause harm to the character, setting , and identity of Wilstead. It follows that there would be unequivocal conflict with Policy AD42 of the ADLP. The proposal would also run counter to the aims and objectives of the WNP, insofar as it seeks to retain and enhance the setting, character, and identity of Wilstead and to maintain the separation between Wilstead and Duck End . Other C onsiderations Spatial strategy 25. The spatial strategy for the Borough set out in Policy 3S of the BBLP seeks to direct development towards larger settlements, with limited development in designated key service centres , which includ e Wilstead . The site , however, lies outside of the settlement boundary of Wilstead and is therefore in the countryside for planning policy purposes. Policy 7S of the BBLP sets out the circumstances in which development outside of defined settlement boundaries will be permitted, none of which apply to the proposal. Consequently, the re would be conflict with the provisions for development in the countryside set out in Policy 7S of the BBLP . Heritage assets 26. There are several listed buildings in the vicinity of the appeal sit e, inclu ding the Grade II listed buildings known as Dove Cottage 3 , Duck End Farm House 4 , and Duck End Barn 5 . Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special regard to be had to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their setting s , and any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. 27. Dove Cottage is a timber - framed building with painted roughcast walls and a timber shingle roof, which could once have been thatched . The list entry suggests that the building dates from the 17 th Century although , from the information before me, it did not appear in mapping evidence until later . It is thought that the cottage was once subdivided into two agricultural worker’s dwellings before it was extended and amalgamated into a single property. The building has special architectural and historic interest due, in part, to its age, plan form, and its vernacular construction which reveal information about rural life and construction methods from the period in which it originated. 28. According to the list entry and the evidence , Duck End Farm House originates from the 18 th Century and was extended in the 19 th Century. The large size and 3 List entry number 1114204 4 List entry number 1321586 5 List entry number 1114203 Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 brick construction of the farmhouse provide evidence of its evolution through a profitable period in farming, and past architectural trends . Along with its age, these features of the building contribute to its special architectural and historic interest . 29. Duck End Barn , which is thought to date from circa 1800 , has special interest as a former threshing barn and its age and surviving historic fabric provid e evidence of historic farming practices and construction techniques. The farmhouse and b arn are closely related as part of a former farmstead such that they have group value , which contributes further to their significance. 30. It is common ground that the listed building s on Duck End Lane also gain significance from their settings ; and I agree . T he surrounding fields and the narrow, tree - lined nature of Duck End Lane provide important visual and experiential indications of the agricultural history of the buildings and the area. Moreover, the physical relationship between the buildings , and their separation from the core of Wilstead enables them to be experienced as a n ‘end’ settlement, reflective of the historic settlement patter n in this area. The undeveloped nature of the appeal site contributes to this sense of separation , and it also offers a visual and spatial connection between these buildings and the wider rural landscape, Consequently, the site is an element of the setting of each of these buildings that contributes to their overall significance and special interest. 31. The proposed development would have a close, physical relationship with the built - up edge of Wilstead , such that its effects on the wider rural landscape would be limited. Furthermore, there would be no direct change to the country lane character of Duck End Lane, from where the listed buildings would continue to be appreciate d within their rural surrounds. The development would also retain some separation between Wilstead and Duck End through the proposed open space. 32. However, the development would nonetheless bring built form much closer to the listed buildings than is currently the case and, according to the Council, it could come to within 40m of the rear boundary of Duck End Cottage. The proposal would , therefore, have an urbanising effect within proximity to the listed buildings , thus it would fail to preserve the rural character of the ir immediate settings . 33. It is common ground that , through this development within their settings, there would be harm caused to the significance of Dove Cottage, Duck End Farmhouse, and Duck End Barn , and I concur with this conclusion. Owing to the scale and nature of th e setting effects , the harm to the significance of each of these listed buildings would be less than substantial . The Framework requires this harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, and this is a matter that I shall return to later in this decision. 34. The Council identifies that the hedgerows within the site form part of a historic field system and, therefore, they have value as non - designated heritage assets (NDHA s ) . Whilst there would be some loss of hedgerow to facilitate the site access, extensive lengths of hedgerow would be retained within landscaped buffers; which could be secured through conditions and during the consideration of reserved matters applications. I am therefore satisfied that this historic field pattern and the hedgerows would remai n evident , thus the NDHA would be preserved . 35. In addition to the heritage assets referenced above, there are several other historic buildings referred to in the evidence. These include the Grade II listed Vicarage Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 Farmhouse 6 , Manor Farmhouse 7 , and Granary at Manor Farm 8 which have special interest due, in part, to their architecture and historic uses . G iven the distance and intervening built form between the site and these assets , there is very limited visual connecti vity . Therefore, whilst the appeal site lies within the setting of these buildings, it does not contribute to their significance insofar as it is relevant to th is appeal. It is common ground that the setting and significance of these assets would be preserved, and I agree with this conclusion. Accessibility to services and facilities 36. I am mindful of third - party comments, including from the Parish Council, that Wilstead would not provide for the full range of services and facilities to meet the needs of future occupants. F rom the evidence and my observations, there is a primary school, a shop, public houses, food establishments, a village hal l , and a social club within Wilstead, all within a short walking distance from the site. Other retail, community and education facilities are available at Wixams, which could also be reached on foot or by bicycle from the proposed dwellings utilising the enhanced footpaths and cycleways that are proposed as part of the scheme. 37. Where the local services and facilities in Wilstead and Wixhams would not be sufficient in meeting some needs, or where capacity issues may exist, there is a regular, short, bus service to Bedford from Bedford Road, which would be accessible via new footwa y links and a road crossing proposed as part of the development. From here, there would be a wide range of services and facilities commensurate with Bedford’s status as a major town in this area . There are also bus services from here to Milton Keynes, albe it the evidence suggests those services may be less frequent and the journeys longer in duration. 38. Overall, whilst it is inevitable that some residents would choose to travel by private car, I am satisfied that there would be good opportunities for future occupants to meet their daily needs via a range of sustainable transport options. Habitats and protected species 39. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) identified the hedgerows as the most valuable habitats on the site, most of which would be retained. The small areas of hedgerow that would be lost to facilitate access to the site would be compensated for through replacement planting, which would form part of the landscaping proposals to be considered at reserved matters stage. The proposal would also be subject to the statutory requirement to deliver a net gain in biodiversity . 40. Given there is a high likelihood of Great Crested Newts being disturbed by the development, the works would be undertaken under a District Level Newt License. I have seen correspondence from the District Licensing Officer, confirming that the relevant certificate has been submitted and , therefore , I have no reason to doubt that a license would be issued. 41. The site also has the potential to support commuting and foraging bats as well as nesting birds , reptiles, and common am p hibians . The PEA suggests a range of mitigation and enhancement measures in respect of these and other protected 6 List entry number 1114196 7 List entry number 1321583 8 List entry number 1114199 Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 species , which I am satisfied would be sufficient to ensure that any adverse effects would be adequately avoided or mitigated. 42. Overall, I am satisfied that protected species and habitats would not be adversely affected by the proposal and that biodiversity would be enhanced. Foul drainage 43. Anglian Water has stated that the Bedford Water Recycling Centre (WRC) currently does not have the capacity to receive foul flows from the development. However, it also states that Bedford WRC is included within its Business Plan as a named growth scheme, with investment planned between 2025 - 2030. On this basis, Anglian Water has recommended a planning condition to prevent the occupation of the proposed dwellings until there is sufficient headroom at the WRC , with the condition ceasing to have effect after April 2030. 44. I have seen correspondence from Anglian Water made during the lifetime of the application in which it confirmed that it is obligated to accept the foul flows from the development; and that it would take the necessary measures to ensure there would be sufficient treatment capacity if planning permission were granted. Given that t here would be a significant lead in time between the grant of planning permission and the first occupation of the dwellings, I see no reason to conclude that Anglian Water w ould not carry out its planned investment in the WRC before the additional capacity would be required. Indeed, I heard that the first dwellings would not be ready for occupation until 2028/29 , which would be towards the end of Anglian Water’s investment period. 45. The parties ’ views are aligned that the condition suggested by Anglian Water would be un necessary. Due to the fact that Anglian Water is obligated to accept the flows arising from the development , and that it plans to invest in the facility by April 2030 at the latest , I agree that the condition would be unnecessary. For the same reasons, there is no basis for a finding that the foul drainage network would not cater for the development if the appeal were to be allowed . Flooding 46. A small area of the site , near to Duck End Lane, lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3. However, the parameter plan shows that no built development is proposed within this area of flood risk. Rather, t he Flood Risk and Drainage Strategy identifies that the developable area of the site is at a low risk of flooding from all potential sources . Third parties have drawn my attention to some area s of localised pooling on the site. However, the surface water drainage proposals, which could be secured through a condition , would help to ameliorate this. Consequently, there would be no increased risk of flooding arising from the proposal. High way safety and access 47. The development would inevitably generate additional traffic. However, there is authoritative, technical evidence before me to show that there would be no harm caused in terms of highway safety or congestion . T he Highway Authority has not raised any concerns in respect of the proposed access, highway safety , or road and junction capacity ; and I find no convincing reason to depart from the views of th is statutory consultee on highway matters . Overall, I am satisfied that the Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 proposal would safeguard the highway network , and that the access arrangements would be acceptable. Noise and nuisance 48. Concerns were raised during the consultation process about noise levels arising from the nearby bottle bank. Noise levels could feasibly be made acceptable through a combination of detailed measures, including the site layout, landscaping, and the design o f the dwellings, which would be relevant considerations during the determination of reserved matters applications. 49. Any nuisance arising during the construction process would be temporary in duration and could be managed through appropriate construction methods and safeguards, which could be secured through a condition. Therefore, this issue need not be an impediment to the grant of planning permission. A gricultural land 50. The proposal would lead to the loss of agricultural land. However, the Agricultural Land Classification Report indicates that the land is Grade 3b and, therefore, it is not best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the Framework. The proposal would accord with the provisions of the Framework, insofar as it expects poorer quality land to be preferred to higher quality land where there is a necessity for the significant development of agricultural land , as would be the case here. Potential Future Developments 51. Concerns have been raised that the development would enable the further growth of Wilstead. However, a ny hypothetical future planning applications would necessarily be considered by the Council against the requirements of the development plan and other relevant considerations at the time. This appeal decision does not and cannot predetermine the outcome of those applications. Benefits of the proposal Contribution to housing supply 52. The Council concedes that it is currently only able to demonstrate 3.35 years of housing land supply (HLS), which is a significant shortfall against the five - year requirement of the Framework. Given that the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 has been withdrawn, there is no emerging plan at a sufficiently advanced stage to provide certainty that the HLS position is likely to recover in the near future. 53. I heard that, if the appeal is allowed, development would commence in July 2027 and that 126 homes would be constructed within the next five years ; and there is no evidence before me to indicate that this trajectory would not be deliverable . The proposal would, therefore, make a meaningful contribution to addressing the housing shortfall and it would also contribute to longer term housing needs. The Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes, and, i n the context of the HLS position, the deli very of housing carries significant positive weight. Affordable housing 54. The Council accepts that the delivery of affordable homes has fallen short of the requirement set out in the development plan. The proposal would provide 30% affordable housing, or 45 units, which would meet the requirement of Policy 58S of Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 the BBLP . Given there is a n undersupply of affordable housing in the Borough and therefore a pressing need for additional affordable homes, this benefit carries significant weight . Biodiversity net gain s 55. There is a statutory requirement for biodiversity net gains of at least 10%, which would be provided through a mix of on - site and off - site measures. The enhancement in biodiversity weighs in favour of the scheme . However, the actual gains in this case would not be significant given the enhancements would be proportionate to the base - line biodiversity value of the site. For this reason, I ascribe moderate weight to this benefit. Public open space 56. P ublic open space would be required to address the needs of future occupants of the scheme. However, it would also be within walking distance of existing communit ies who would have access to , and would benefit from , the proposed open space provisions. The parties agree that the delivery of open space is a benefit of the scheme and, in my judgement, it carries moderate positive weight. Economic benefits 57. The re would be economic benefits associated with the construction phase, including through employment and the local construction supply chain. In the longer term, future residents would increase spending and trade, which would help to support the vitality of rural communities and local services and facilities. The benefits in this case have not been quantified and would be commensurate to the scale of the development proposed. In this context, they carry moderate weight . Pedestrian and cycle links 58. Whilst the new pedestrian and cycle links would be required to provide safe access to the site for future occupiers , the links would also be of wider benefit to the existing community . T he proposed footpath along the north - eastern edge of Bedford Road , and the pedestrian crossing , would enhance accessibility, convenience, and safety for existing residents as well as future occupiers . In my judgement, this is a benefit that carries moderate weight. The Forest of Marston Vale 59. Extensive tree planting is proposed to accord with the requirements of Policy 36S of the BBLP, which expect s 30% tree cover to support the creation of the Forest of Marston Vale. The appellant indicates that the proposal would exceed the policy requirement . H owever , landscaping is a reserved matter , an d the extent of the tree cover i s not certain at this stage . Nonetheless, the minimum tree cover could be secured through a condition; and I have no reason to find that the site could not accommodate the planting proposed. Given the uncertainty as to the extent of the additional tree cover at this stage, the benefit carries limited weight. Planning Obligation 60. I have considered the obligations within the S106 Agreement against the tests set out in the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (the CIL Regulations) and the Framework , noting that the parties agree that the obligations comply with the Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 tests . The tests require that obligations are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development , and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. 61. The S 106 Agreement provides for the submission of an affordable housing scheme , which is necessary to ensure compliance with Policy 58S of the BB LP. The obligation to secure the delivery of a ccessible and wheelchair user dwellings is a requirement of Policy 59S of the BB LP and, therefore, is necessa ry and related to the development. 62. Obligations relating to the provision, management and maintenance of open space would be necessary to meet the needs of future occupiers in accordance with the requirements of Policy AD28 of the ADLP . The S 106 also secures the delivery of the off - site highway works that are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and to facilitate and promote the use of sustainable travel modes in accordance with Policies 31 , 53 , and 86s of the BBLP . 63. Further obligations provide for financial contributions towards healthcare facilities ; and education, including early years , secondary education, and special educational needs . The contributions have been calculated based on population projections and standardised costs , which were explained at the hearing. I am satisfied from what I have seen and heard that each of these financial contributions would be used for capital projects and for a local need arising from the development. 64. The S106 also includes provision for the management, monitoring and maintenance of sustainable urban drainage systems and biodiversity areas, which would be necessary to ensure these features would endure in the long term. 65. Overall, I find that each of the obligations in the S106 would meet the tests set out in the CIL Regulations and the Framework ; and I have taken them into account in reaching my decision on this appeal. The parties are satisfied that the S106 would be effective and enforceable, and I see no reason to form a different view. 66. The East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust requested financial contributions , noting that the additional population would increase pressure on the Kempston Ambulance Hub (the hub) . The contributions sought would help to fund the costs associated with the relocation, expansion, and installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure at the hub . I acknowledge that capital funding for the ambulance service does not increase when new homes are built. However, it is not clear how the financial contribution sought has been calculated and how it would directly relate to the development. T herefore, I cannot be satisfied that the contribution would meet the tests in the CIL Regulations . For this reason, the absence of this contribution does not weigh against t he proposal. Heritage and Planning Balance Heritage balance 67. The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of Dove Cottage, Duck End Farm House , and Duck End Barn through development within their setting s. The parties agree that the extent of the harm caused to each of the listed buildings would be minor; and in my judgement it would be at the low end of the range within the category of less than substantial harm . Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 68. The harm to each of the listed buildings is of considerable weight and importance , and I also ascribe great weight to the conservation of these designated heritage assets. However, in my judgement and having regard to my duties under the Act, I find that the public benefits I have identified in this case , particularly relating to the delivery of market and affordable housing where there is a significant shortfall , would be sufficient to outweigh the cumulative harm that would be caused to the significance of the listed buildings. On this basis, the harm to the heritage assets carries the clear and convincing justification required by the Framework and there would be no conflict with Policy 41S of the BBLP . Planning balance 69. T he conflict with Policy AD42 of the ADLP and Policy 7S of the BBLP brings the proposal into conflict with the development plan. However, because of the HLS position , paragraph 11 d) of the Framework , and the similar provisions in Policy AD1 of the ADLP , are engaged 70. Having found that the harm to the significance of the heritage assets would be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal, there are no circumstances before me to indicate that the re would be a strong reason for refusing the development proposed under the provision s of either Paragraph 11 d) i. of the Framework or Policy AD1 ii. of the ADLP . Therefore , the proposal falls to be considered under the test set out in Paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework and Policy AD1 i. of the ADLP 71. A dverse effects would arise through the physical and visual diminishment of the Local Gap between Wilstead and Wixhams, the harmful change in the character of the Local Gap, and the harm that would be caused to the character, setting , and identi t y of Wilstead. Whilst the Framework does not include specific provisions relating t o settlement gaps , it nonetheless expects proposals to improve the environment, to be sympathetic to local character and history , and to maintain a strong sense of place . These provisions reflect some of the ob jectives of Policy AD42 and, therefore, the policy remains a pertinent consideration in my decision. 72. Harm would also arise through the conflict with Policy 7S of the BBLP due to the site’s location outside of the settlement boundary of Wilstead , in the countryside. However, the Framework does not preclude development outside of defined settlement boundaries , and the site would be well located to provide good accessibility to services and facilities by sustainable travel modes . The proposal would, therefore, accord with the Framework’s expectations in respect of directing development to sustainable locations. Moreover, I have found that the harm to the character of the area would be localised; and therefore, in my judgement, the proposal would accord with the Framework’s expectatio n that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside should be recognised, and it would not run counter to the findings of the Courts 9 in this respect. 73. The significant shortfall in the HLS indicates that sites for housing will need to come forward beyond those identified as preferred locations in the development plan . Taking account of this and the specific context of the site and the surroundings, I ascribe limited weight to the conflict with Policy 7S of the BBLP. 9 Including Alwyn De Souza v SSLCG and others [2015] EWHC 2245 (Admin) Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 74. A dverse effects would also arise in respect of the listed buildings, although I have found that the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh th e heritage harm . 75. Set against these harms would be the benefits of the scheme, including the provision of market and affordable housing, each of which carry significant positive weight. I have also ascribed positive weight to the delivery of biodiversity net gains, public open space, tree planting in the Forest of Marston Vale, and improved footpath and cycle links. The economic benefits arising in the construction phase and in the longer term also weigh in favour of the scheme. 76. The parties agreed at the hearing that the carrying out of the planning balancing exercise is ultimately a matter for the decision maker , although I have had regard to the judgements made in the other appeal decisions to which I have been referred, including the decision at Fareham 10 . 77. I n the specific circumstances of this case, it is my judgement that the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole and having particular regard to the key policies referred to in Paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework. The proposal therefore benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Framework and in Policy AD1 of the AD LP. Conditions 78. I have considered the suggested conditions agreed between the parties against the tests for conditions set out in the Framework. Where necessary, I have amended the wording of the conditions to ensure compliance with the tests or in the interests of brevity and consistency. 79. I have included a condition specifying the relevant plans (1) to provide certainty as well as the standard conditions relating to the submission of reserved matters (2) and time limits (3) . Condition 4 is necessary to ensure the timely delivery of the infrastructure required to support the dwellings. 80. Condition 5 is necessary in the interest of highway safety and to protect the living conditions of nearby residents during the construction period. Condition s 6 is required to safeguard heritage assets of archaeological interest. 81. Conditions 7, 8, 9, and 10 are necessary to safeguard human health and the natural environment, including biodiversity features and trees, during the construction process. 82. Condition 11 is required in the interest s of highway safety . Conditions 1 2 - 1 4 are imposed in order to ensure the protection of great crested newts. 83. Conditions 15, 16, 17, and 18 are necessary to ensure the effects of the proposal on local character , and the details of open space and play provision , can be properly considered as part of the reserved matters submissions. Similarly, conditions 19 - 22 are required to ensure that proper consideration can be given to pedestrian safety , the management of streets , and refuse storage and collection at the reserved matters stage. I have altered the trigger for these conditions because they relate to matters that will necessarily be determined as part of the reserved matters submission(s) for layout . 10 Appeal decision reference: APP/ A1720/W/22/3299739, dated 23 November 2022 Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 84. Condition 23 is required to ensure there would be adequate provision for surface water drainage and to avoid the risk of flooding. Conditions 2 4 and 2 5 are imposed to ensure there would be an adequate standard of accommodation for future occupiers of the dwellings . 85. Condition 2 6 is necessary in the interests of highway safety and to protect the character and identity of Wilstead . However, I am not convinced it is necessary for the gateway feature to be finalised at an early stage of the construction process , and I have therefore adjusted the suggested trigger for this condition . 86. Condition 2 7 is required to ensure that sustainable travel modes are encouraged and prioritised. Condition 2 8 is necessary to ensure adequate provision of fire hydrants in the interests of fire safety. Finally, condition 2 9 is imposed to safeguard protected species, local character, and the living conditions of residents. 87. Further suggested conditions relating to external materials, and the timing of the delivery of hard - surfacing and vehicular turning places are detailed matters that relate to the reserved matters. It is not necessary for these to be covered by conditions on this outline planning permission. 88. Due to the provisions of Schedule 7 of the Town and Country Planning Ac t 1990, and as none of the statutory exemptions apply in this case, the development may not be begun unless a biodiversity gain plan (BGP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Because the biodiversity gain objective has a separate statutory basis as a planning condition, it is not necessary for me to include it within the schedule of conditions on this decision . Furthermore, t he Council may only approve the BGP if it is satisfied that the biodiversity gain objective is met , and there is no reason before me to suggest that the Council could not, if necessary, secure the implementation of the measures in the BGP when approving the plan. Conclusion 89. Overall, and notwithstanding the provisions of Policy AD1 of the ADLP, it is my assessment that the conflict with Policy AD42 of the ADLP and Policy 7S of the BBLP brings the proposal into conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. However, i n this case, the material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons give above, the appeal should be allowed. E Catcheside INSPECTOR SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan 24 - 953 - 03C and Proposed Access Junction Layout ADC2364 - DR - 003 P06 . Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 2) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development takes place . The reserved matters details shall accord with the Parameter Plan 24 - 953 - 03D . T he development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 3) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. The development shall begin not later than two years from the date of the approval of the last reserved matter to be approved . 4) Should the site be developed in phases, a S ite W ide P hasing P lan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the approval of the first reserved matters application . The Site Wide Phasing Plan shall define the phases of the development and the sequence in which the following elements will be provided , as relevant : (i) Development parcels; (ii) Infrastructure including all accesses, primary roads and routes within the site, primary footpaths and cycleways, including timing of provision and opening of access points into the site, and the off - site works; (iii) Surface water drainage features, SuDS and the foul water drainage network; (iv) Formal and informal public open space, including the provision for children’s play; (v) Strategic landscaping on the boundaries of the site ; (vi) St r ategic electricity, telecommunications and potable water mains provision . The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved Site Wide Phasing Plan . 5) For each phase of the development, n o development shall take place (including site clearance) , until a C onstruction M anagement P lan for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Construction Management Plan shall include the following details: (i) The parking of vehicles; (ii) Loading and unloading of plant and materials used in the development; (iii) Storage of plant and materials used in the development; (iv) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding/scaffolding affect ing the highway (if required) (v) Measure s to control the deposition of dirt/mud on surrounding roads during the development ; (vi) Footpath/footway/cycleway and road closures and traffic diversions needed during the construction period ; (vii) Traffic management needed at the interface with the public highway during the development period; (viii) Times, routes (to include specific measures such as delivery ticket instructions and location of signage) and means of access and egress for Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 construction traffic and delivery vehicles (including the import of materials and the removal of waste from the site) . The construction of the development within each phase shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan. 6) For each phase of the development, n o development shall take place until an archaeological strategy for evaluation and, if necessary, a further mitigation strategy for that phase based on the outcome of the evaluation, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The archaeological mitigation strategy shall include a timetable for works and the following components : (i) Fieldwork and/or preservation “in situ” of archaeological remains; (ii) A post - ex cavation assessment report (to be submitted within six months of the completion of fieldwork) (iii) A post - excavation analysis report , preparation of site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the local planning authority, completion of an archive report , and submission of a publication report (to be completed within two years of the completion of fieldwork). The archaeological mitigation strategy shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable. 7) For each phase of the development, n o development shall take place until a Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment Report for that phase, containing a Conceptual Site Model that indicates sources, pathways and receptors , has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The report shall identify the current and past land uses of the site and adjacent sites , with a view to determining the presence of contamination likely to be harmful to human health and the built and natural environment. If the Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment Report identifies a reasonable likelihood of harmful contamination, then no development within that phase shall be commenced until an Intrusive Site Investigation Risk Assessment Report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Site Investigation Risk Assessment Report shall identify the location and concentration of all pollutants on the site, the presence of receptors , and the results and recommendations from an appropriate risk assessment methodology . No development shall take place on any part of the site where the risk assessment identifies an unacceptable risk arising from contamination until (a) remediation works have been carried out in accordance with a Remediation Method Statement that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority ; and (b) a Remediation Verification Report , confirm ing that the site is suitable for use , has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any contamination that is found during the construction of the development that was not previously identified shall be reported to the local planning authority as Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 soon as practically possible . Development on the part of the site affected shall be suspended and a risk assessment shall be carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found , remediation and verification s c hemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These approved schemes shall be carried out before the development is resumed or continued. 8) Prior to the commencement of the development, a Construction Ecological Environmental Management Plan (CeEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CeEMP shall include the following details: (i) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities; (ii) Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”; (iii) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements) (iv) The location and timings of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features; (v) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works; (vi) Responsible persons and lines of communication; (vii) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works or similarly competent person; (viii) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers, and warning signs if applicable. The approved CeEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details. 9) Prior to the commencement of the development, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The contents of the LEMP shall include: (i) Description and evaluation of features to be managed; (ii) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management; (iii) Aims and objectives of management; (iv) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives; (v) Prescriptions of management actions; (vi) Prescription of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a thirty - year period); (vii) Details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of the plan; (viii) Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures. These shall include details of how the long - term implementation of the plan will be monitored and delivered and shall identify how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed, and implemented in order to ensure the delivery of the biodiversity objectives of the scheme. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 The LEMP shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 10) No development shall take place until an Arboricultural Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The method statement shall detail all tree protection measures and set out working methods which are to be implemented across each phase. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 11) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, no development shall take place until details of the junction of the vehicular access with Bedford Road, including a timetable for the construction of the associated works and measures to prevent sur face water from entering the highway, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The junction shall be constructed to base course level, in accordance with the approved details, prior to the development commencing. No d welling shall be occupied until the junction has been completed in full accordance with the approved details, including the provision of the surface course. 12) No development shall take place except in complete accordance with the terms and conditions of the Council’s Organisational License (WML - OR152, or a ‘Further License’) and with the proposals detailed on plan “Land on the East of Duck End Lane: Impact plan for great crested new t District Licensing (Version 1), dated 6 October 2025. 13) No development shall take place unless and until a certificate from the Delivery Partner (as set out in the District License VML - OR152, or a ‘Further License’), confirming that all necessary measures regarding great crested newt compensation have been appr opriately dealt with, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the authority has provided authorisation for the development to proceed under the district newt licence. 14) No development shall take place except in accordance with Part 1 of the Great Crested Newt Mitigation Principles, as set out in the District License (WML - OR152, or a ‘Further License’) and in compliance with the following: • Works to existing ponds onsite may only be undertaken during the autumn/winter, unless otherwise in accordance with Great Crested Newt Mitigation Principles. • Works which will affect likely newt hibernacula may only be undertaken during the active period for amphibians. • Capture methods must be used at suitable habitat features prior to the commencement of the development, which may include the use of temporary amphibian fencing, to prevent new t s moving onto the development site from adjacent suitable habitat, installed for the period of the construction of the development and removed upon completion of the development. • Amphibian fencing and pitfall trapping must be undertaken at suitable habitats and features, prior to the commencement of the development. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 15) The reserved matters submission for landscaping shall include the following details: (i) A survey of existing trees, shrubs and hedges giving their species, location, height, spread and condition and indicating those which are to be retained and those which are to be removed. (ii) Planting proposals giving location, species, number, density and planting size. (iii) Details of how a minimum 30% tree cover, to accord with the policy requirements for the Forest of Marston Vale, shall be achieved on the site; (iv) The relationship of new planting to buildings, roads, footpaths, drains and the location of all underground and overground services; (v) Areas of grass turfing or seeding and other surface materials; (vi) Depth of topsoil to be provided where necessary and the measures to be taken to maintain the new planting; (vii) Details of all hard landscaping works, paving materials, street furniture, bollards and bins; (viii) Details of long - term management and maintenance proposals for the new planting (ix) A timetable for the implementation of the works including the provision of strategic landscaping and any phasing of provision at the site. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 16) The reserved matters submission s for layout and landscaping shall include a plan showing all associated open space areas and the following details: (i) The type of open space proposed and area in square metres, to accord with Appendix 6 of the Open Space Supplementary Planning Document; (ii) Access points for pedestrians and maintenance vehicles, and measures to prevent unauthorised vehicles from accessing the open space; (iii) Litter bin numbers and locations. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 17) The reserved matters submission for layout shall include a detailed plan of the equipped play area(s) and the following details: (i) Play equipment types, locations and material finish; (ii) Safety surfacing type and colour; (iii) Details of fencing, gates, benches and litter bins; (iv) Distance from dwellings (minimum 20m); (v) Details of access paths including material finish. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 18) The reserved matters submission s for scale and layout shall include detailed drawings to show the existing and proposed ground levels and the finished floor levels for the development. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 20 19) The reserved matters submission for layout shall include details of the location, type and colour of surfacing materials of carriageways, shared surfaces, ramps, raised tables, footways, footway - cycleways, paths in public open spaces, access paths to cycle parking and houses, individual and shared private driveways, public/visitor parking, and measures to prevent surface water from draining onto proposed highways. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the details approved. 20) The reserved matters submission for layout shall include details of the arrangements for the future management and maintenance of streets and footpaths/cycle paths. The streets and footpaths/cycle paths shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accorda nce with the approved details until such time as an agreement has been entered into under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or a private management and maintenance company has been established. 21) The reserved matters submission for layout shall include details of bin storage and collection points . The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the details approved. 22) The reserved matters submission for layout shall include details of triangular pedestrian visibility splays, measuring 1.8 metres x 1.8 metres adjacent to the rear edge of any footway on each side of any driveway and/or vehicular access that crosses a footway. The splays shall be provided before the access to which the splays relate is brought into use and the splays shall be kept free of any obstruction over the height of 0.6 metres above ground level. 23) The reserved matters submission for layout shall include a surface water drainage scheme , which demonstrate s that there will be storage for a 1 in 100 - year rainfall event plus 40% climate change with a 10% allowance for Urban Creep , and that a ny discharge rate from the development will be at Greenfield runoff rate or below. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the details approved. 24) The reserved matters submission for layout and appearance shall include details of measures to be taken to ensure that all habitable rooms that, without mitigation, would be exposed to external road noise in excess of 55dBA Leq 16 hour (free field) during the day (0700 hours to 2300 hours) or 45dBA Leq 8 hour (free field) during the night (2300 hours to 0700 hours) shall achieve an internal noise level of 35 dBA Leq 16 hour during the day and 30 dBA Leq 8 hour during the night and shall be effectively venti lated without opening windows. No dwelling that falls within the scope of this condition shall be occupied until the approved measures for that dwelling have been provided and the measures shall thereafter be retained. 25) The reserved matters submission s for layout and appearance shall include details of measures to be taken to ensure that the maximum daytime noise level in private outdoor amenity areas shall not exceed 50dBA Leq 16 hour (free field). No dwelling shall be occupied until the approved measu res for that dwelling have been provided and the measures shall thereafter be retained. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 21 26) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, no dwelling shall be occupied until details of a gateway feature , including signage to show the speed limit and village name , has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The gateway feature shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the approved details before any dwelling is first occup ied . 27) No dwelling shall be first occupied until a detailed travel plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The travel plan shall include: (i) A baseline survey of the site occupants (if known) or a timetable to undertake a baseline survey of occupants (within 6 months of first occupation) to establish current/proposed travel patterns; (ii) Details of existing and proposed transport provision and facilities, to include links to pedestrian, cycl e and public transport networks and conformity with the local planning authority’s car and cycle parking standards; (iii) Proposals and measures to minimise private car use and facilitate walking, cycling and public transport; (iv) Details Travel Plan targets with relevant target dates; (v) A details Action Plan to include specific timetabled measures designed to promote travel choice; (vi) Proposed plans/methods to monitor and undertake annual reviews of the Travel Plan and its targets for a period of 5 years, including details for submitting the review to the local planning authority for approval ; (vii) Details of site - specific marketing and publicity information to be provided to all occupiers of the development to include: s ite specific travel and transport information , i ncentives to encourage sustainable modes of travel , d etails of relevant pedestrian, cycle and public transport routes to/from and within the site , m aps showing the location of shops and other facilities , and c opies of relevant bus and rail timetables (viii) The appointment of a co - ordinator who will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the Action Plan and the annual reviews. The Travel Plan shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 28) No dwelling shall be first occupied until a scheme for the provision of fire hydrants, including a timetable for the delivery of the fire hydrants, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The fire hydrants shall there after be delivered in accordance with the approved scheme. 29) No external lighting shall be installed on the site except in accordance with an external lighting scheme that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. End of Schedule Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 22 APPEARANCES F OR THE APPELLANT : Christopher Katkowski CBE KC, Kings Chambers Michael Robson BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI, Cerda Planning James Morton BA (Hons) MA CMLI, Aspect Landscape Planning Chris May LLB LARTPI, Freeths FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY : Phillip E Hughes BA (Hons) MRTPI FRGS FRSA Dip Man MCMI (Planning Matters) Paul Reynolds CMLI FRSA (Landscape) Alistair Wren MRTPI, Bedford Borough Council Penelope Jewitt, Bedford Borough Council INTERESTED PARTIES : Mark Brooks, Wilstead Parish Council Lizzie Barnicoat, Wilstead Parish Council DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED A FTER THE HEARING: 1. Completed S106 Agreement , dated 14 May 2026 . 2. Revised s chedule of conditions⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Conclusion 89. Overall, and notwithstanding the provisions of Policy AD1 of the ADLP, it is my assessment that the conflict with Policy AD42 of the ADLP and Policy 7S of the BBLP brings the proposal into conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. However, i n this case, the material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons give above, the appeal should be allowed. E Catcheside
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3375485 (Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council) — 2026-05-26
📍 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council LPA code: E07000084 PINS reference: 3375485 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Inquiry Held on 3 - 6 & 10 - 1 2 March 2026 Site visit s made on 4 & 9 March 2026 by G D Jones BSc(Hons) DipTP DMS MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 th May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 Land north of Whitchurch Station, West of Newbury Road • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Genko Holdings Ltd against the decision of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. • The application Ref 23/03157/FUL , dated 20 December 2023 , was refused by notice dated 1 August 2025 . • The development proposed is described as construction of a surface car park; landscape buffer planting and screening; SUDS; erection of single cafe unit (class E); fast - charging EV points; cycle parking facilities; creation of vehicular access pedestrian footpath to station platform . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a surface car park , landscape buffer planting and screening , S u DS , erection of single cafe unit (class E) , fast - charging EV points , cycle parking facilities , vehicular access and pedestrian footpath to station platform at Land north of Whitchurch Station, West of Newbury Road in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/03157/FUL , dated 20 December 2023 , subject to the conditions contained within the Schedule at the end of this decision . Applications for Costs 2. Applications for costs were made by: • Genko Holdings Ltd against Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council ; and • Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council against Genko Holdings Ltd . 3. These costs applications shall be the subject of a separate Decision letter to follow. Although the appellant made no further application, it also inv ited me to make an award of costs against Whitchurch Town Council and Whitchurch Action Group (WTCAG) on my own initiative . I shall also deal with thi s matter in th e Costs Decision letter to follow. Preliminary Matters 4. T he appellant has requested that the appeal be assessed and determined based on proposal drawings that differ from those that were before the Council when it determined the appeal planning app lication. The Council raised no ob jections to Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 this approach and made its case on the basis of the revised details . The changes relate to repositioning of car parking spaces by less than 1m ; l andscaping alterations, including additional planting; variations to the surrounding context ; a modification to the site access to allow a bus to exit in an emergency ; and detail of the drainage and lighting scheme s. 5. In my view, the amendments are, at the most, minor and would not result in a ny substantial difference or fundamental change to the application as determined. Moreover, due to their minor nature, nor would the re be any procedural unfairness caused to anyone involved in the appeal were it to be det ermined on the basis of the revised details. I have, therefore, assessed and determined th e appeal based on the revisions requested by the appellant. 6. A legal agreement, dated 23 March 20 26 , made under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Legal Agreement) was completed shortly after the Inquiry closed. I have had regard to it when consider ing and determin ing the appeal . Main Issue s 7. The main issue s are: • Whether the proposed development would accord with Policy SS11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 - 2029; • Whether it amounts to major development in the terms of paragraph 190 of the National Planning Policy Framework; • The proposed development’s effect on trees, including those subject to Tree Preservation Order; • Its overall effect on the North Wessex Downs National Landscape; and • Whether any harm that might result from the development would be outweighed by other considerations. Reasons Local Plan Policy SS11 8. Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011 to 2029) , M ay 2016 , (the Local Plan) allocates a 1ha site, on land to the north of the railway line at Whitchurch , for development of a new passenger railway station car park . Local Plan Policy SS11 says , amongst other thing s , that proposals for a new rail station car park at this site will be permitted subject to three criteria being met . 9. The appeal site broadly contains the 1ha Policy SS11 site (the alloca ted site) but also includes additional land , particularly to the south linking to the northern platform of Whitchurch Station (the Station) . Landscaping is also proposed beyond the boundaries of both the appeal site and the allocated site , par ticularly to the north and west. The proposed car park , which is intended for use by rail passengers, would , nonetheless, be contained within the allocated site. In that respect, the proposals accord with Policy SS11. 10. The first criteri on of Policy SS11 is that vehicle access to the site can be secured from Newbury Road. Part of the allocated site extends to Newbury Road. It is in this location that t he vehicular access to the car park is proposed. The access would necessitate the removal of tree s , which is a matter considered as part of the Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 third main issue below under the sub - heading Trees . Nonetheless, there is no substantiated evidence that the proposed access cannot be safely created and operated . Moreover, t he local highway authority has not objected to the propose d access . Furthermore, the Council has confirmed that it no longer sustain s its objections in respect to this first criterion. 11. The second criterion is that access between the railway station and car park site can be secured. The allocated site does not have a contiguous boundary with the Station . Consequently , other than using a rather indirect route via the existing highway network , part of which does not have a footway, compliance with this aspect of the Policy would require a link between the car park and the Station across the intervening land , beyond the allocated site . Th is is what is proposed . 12. This access link would be accommodated within that part of the appeal site that extend s to the south of the allocated site . Notwith standing some of the submissions made, there is no substantiated evidence that this proposed access cannot be delivered. Indeed it seems most likely that it can be. As with the first criterion of Policy SS1, the Council has confirmed it no longer sustain s its objections in respect to th e second criterion . 13. The third and final criterion of the Policy is that the site is comprehensively landscaped given its location within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty , now know n as the North Wessex Downs National Landscape (the National Landscape) . The o n - site planting proposed would be supplemented by off - site planting , particularly to the north and west of the allocated site. Collectively and subject to controls that could be secured via planning conditions , the proposed planting would be substantial . Accordingly, the site would be comprehensively landscaped albeit that much of the plant ing would lie beyond the allocated site and the appeal site . The effect of this aspect of the scheme along with any wider effects is considered as part of the fourth main issue below under the sub - heading N orth Wessex Downs National Landscape . 14. Other aspects of the proposals have been criti ci sed as being at odds with Policy SS11 , particularly in terms of going beyond what was envisaged when the Local Plan was adopted . These include the amount of car parking space s and hardstanding pr oposed, the consequential effect on land available on - site for landscaping, as well as in respect to proposed lighting and sustainable drainage systems (the SuDS) . 15. I recognise that if less parking and hardstanding were to be proposed, there would be more space available on - site for landscaping. Nonetheless, Policy SS11 does not place a n upper limit on the number of parking spaces that may be provided nor on the extent of hardstanding. Consequently, there is no co nflict with the Policy as a matter of principle in these respects. 16. While not expressly provided for i n the Policy, the proposed lighting and SuDS would be ancillary to the car park . Lighting and drain age infrastructure are reasonabl y standard features that one would expect to form part of a car park intended to support a railway station. The sa me is true of the proposed electric vehicle charging points and cycle parking facilities, which also do not expressly feature in the Policy. Accordingly, as a matter of principle, none of these considerations are in conflict with Policy SS11. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 17. The proposed café unit contrasts somewhat with the foregoing aspects of the appeal scheme as this kind of facility is less clearly associated with a station car park use . Nonetheless, it would support th e proposed dev e lopment , in terms of providing a service to users of the car park and Station and is described by the appellant as having been brought about by the need to support EV charging . While such a café is not expressly included within the Policy SS11 allocation, n or is it precluded . 18. Overall, therefore, the appeal scheme would not conflict with Policy SS11 of the Local Plan. Nonetheless, i t does not necessarily follow from this that the development would not cause any harm or conflict with other planning policy . These matter s are conside red below. Framework Paragraph 190 19. Paragraph 190 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that when considering applications for development within National Landscapes, permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances and w here it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. The associated footnote 67 sets out that whether a proposal is ‘major development’ for the purposes of paragraph 190 is a matter for the decision maker, taking into account its na ture, scale and setting, and whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated or defined . 20. The planning witnesses for the Council and for WTCAG respectively indicated that a scheme th at complies with Local Plan Policy SS11 would not amount to major development in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . I have found no good reason to disagree with them in this regard. While these witnesses came to a different conclusion to me in respect to compliance with Policy SS11, as set out above I have found that the appeal scheme would accord with this Policy. On this basis , the appeal scheme would not a m ount to ma jor development in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . 21. The appeal site is some 1.18ha in area. While landscaping is proposed beyond its boundary , it would be predominantly in the form of planting rather than development . T he additional land within the appeal site that extends beyond the 1ha allocated site is chiefly to accommodate the proposed link to the Station . As set out above , such a link is a requirement of Policy SS11 yet not something that can be delivered wit hout rely ing on land beyond the allocated site . 22. Although the significant majority of the appeal site would be developed and lit , the totality of the proposed development is of a reasonably small scale , including only one building which would be of modest proportions . Nor would it have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which th e National Landscape has been designated or defined . 23. For these reasons , irresp ective of my conclusion regarding compliance with Policy SS11, t he appeal scheme does not come close to meeting the description of ‘major development’ for the purposes of paragraph 190 of the Framework . Nor does it conflict with this paragraph 190 . In making this assessment I have taken into account the submissions regarding EIA screening. Nonetheless, the tests associated with paragraph 190 and EIA screening are entirely separate , with different purposes, and one should not be used to inform the other . Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 Trees 24. The creation of the proposed vehicular access would result in the loss of three trees l ocated adjacent to Newbury Road. These trees are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order made subsequent to the adoption of the Local Plan . The extent of the allocated site ’s frontage to Newbury Road places a constraint on where a vehicular access, as required by Policy SS11 , could be located . It is here that the proposed access would be located. T he Arboricultural Sta te ment of Common Ground (SoCG) between the Council and the appellant says this is the only place the access can go. Any other, more arboriculturally suitable location is not possible for other highways or landscape reasons . 25. It is implicit , therefore, that the Policy SS11 allocation anticipated the loss of these trees a s well as any effects on other trees to be retained in order to create th e vehicular access required by the Policy . Accordingly , the proposed development would bring about no greater harm through its impact on these trees th an the Local Plan Policy SS11 allocation. Moreover, the Arboricultural SoCG also concludes that the amenity value of the trees to be removed can be compensated by replacement planting , which could be secured via planning conditions. 26. For these reasons, therefore, t he proposed development would not have a significant effect on trees, including those that are subject to the Tree Preservation Order . Accordingly, in this regard , the appeal scheme would comply with Policy EM1 (Landscape) of the Local Plan and Policy LD3 ( Protection of Hedgerows, Trees and Tree Planting ) of the Whitchurch Neighbourhood Development Plan 2014 to 2029, July 2017 (the Neighbourhood Plan) , as well as with p aragraph 187 of the Framework . North Wessex Downs National Landscape 27. When assessing the proposed development’s effect on the National Landscape , I have taken into account that, via Policy SS11, the Local Plan anticipates a new passenger railway station car park at the 1ha allocated site and that that site is contained broadly within the appeal site. 28. Implicit within the Policy SS11 allocation is that a new passenger railway station car park would be acceptable at the allocated site in terms of its effect on the National Landscape subject to the site being comprehensively landscaped . If all of the landscaping were to be contained within the allocated site , it would have a n influence on the amount of space that would be available for the car park and associated development, including drainage infra structure and lighting , particularly around the edges of the allocated site . L imiting the quantum of development and i nc reas ing the amount of landscaping on - site in this manner might be said to be positive in terms of the effect on the National Landscape . 29. However, a more rounded appra isal of the appeal scheme indicates that it would have an acceptable effect on the National Landscape , broadly in line with the appellant’s landscape witness’s assessment . Fundamental to this is how the proposed off - site planting would be seen and experienced in the host landscape . 30. The proposed landscaping scheme relies on some 1ha of land that lies beyond the appeal site. While this approach may not be ideal , provided that the mitigation , be it on or off - site , would be secured , it would be acceptable in principle. The some 20m - deep belt of tree planting proposed to the north of the appeal site would be Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 very much in keeping with the local landscape character . Notable existing examples are found nearby, to the west along the former railway corridor and to the south along the existing railway corridor. Co mparable long and deep tree belts are also present in the wider landscape, particularly to the northwest . Moreover , native woodland is a key characteristic of the National Landscape and a benefit of the scheme . 31. Although the proposed tree belt would foreshorten the host field, any Policy SS11 compliant scheme would have a foreshortening effect . To the north of the tree belt , the scale and proportions of the field that would remain would be in keeping with the wider landscape. An important aspect of the effectiveness of th e proposed tree belt as a characteristic landscape feature is that it would extend the full width of the field . This c ould not be achieved were planting to be constrained to the allocated site. 32. Indeed, l imiting the landscaping to within the allocat ed site would be likely to be less in keeping with the local landscape than what is proposed. There are two principal reasons for this . First, while it would provide a greater sense of openness, planting constrained to a corner of a large field is less characteristic of the area’s landscape than the proposed tree belt . Se cond, the boundary of the allocated site has a series of rather awkward angles and corners that are even less ch aracteristic of the local landscape . 33. Part of the landscaping scheme includes meadow, which is not characteristic of the wider landscape . Nonetheless, it is characteristic of the edge of Whitchurch where there are areas of grassland and scrub such that it would not be out of keeping here or harmful to the National Landscape. 34. The appeal site is reasonably prominent in terms of being fairly elevate d and standing on the edge of the settlement with a frontage to Newbury Road. Nonetheless, its prominence and any sense of this area acting as a gateway to the National Landscape would have been known when Policy SS11 was adopted as part of the Local Plan. 35. Moreover, due in large part to the proposed planting, v isual effects of the development would be localised and diminish over time as the planting matures . By ‘ year 15 ’ , the proposed development w ould be screened from views to the north . It also seems likely that there would be some betterment in terms of providing additional screening of existing lighting within the settlement , including that associated with the Station. 36. Views of the development from the west would be more open , particularly while the proposed planting established. The Landscape and Visual Appraisal ’s assessment that after Year 15 the adverse visual effects on receptors using the rights of way to the west would be no more than moderate appears reasonable . Since th is Appraisal was produced the scheme has evolved and now includes more sympathetic mitigation . Consequently, the se visual effects are likel y to have reduced , at least a little. Nonetheless, the adverse effects in this respect would result in conflict with Policy EM1 of the Local Plan. 37. The car park would be apparent from Newbury Road, particularly due to the vehicular access , both in terms of heralding its presence and affording views in to the site that are currently screen ed or filtered by boundary planting, including the three trees that are proposed to be removed. Nonetheless, given that Policy SS11 Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 requires a vehicular access to Newbury Road , the landscape and visual effects of the development along this frontage would be likely to be similar for any Policy SS11 compliant scheme. 38. Limiting the landscaping associated with a Policy SS11 car park development to within the allocated site would also have implications in respect to visual effects . This is because there is very little scope to position the vehicular access other than near to the northern boundary . Consequently, there would be limited opportunity to sympathetically screen the development along part of the northern boundary . The proposed scheme represents a significant improvement by comparison. 39. Due principally to the screening effect of the proposed planting , the proposed drainage scheme would not have a significant influence on the character and appearance of the area beyond that of the wider proposed development . For similar reasons , combined with its small scale and simple design, the same would be true of the proposed café building. 40. The Council ’s case is that the appeal scheme would breach the statutory duty in s85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (the Sta tutory Duty) to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the National Landscape. Its planning witness accepted , nonetheless, that a proposal in accordance with Policy SS11 would be compatible with the S tatutory D uty . Again, I have f ound no good reason to disagree with her in this regard. 41. In summary , while there would be some adverse landscape and visual effects and associated conflict with Local Plan Policy EM1 resulting from the appeal scheme, these should be viewed in the context of the Local Plan Policy SS11 allocation . Any Policy SS11 compliant scheme would have some landscape and visual impacts . The appeal scheme accords with Policy SS11. Its landscape and visual effects would be localised and any harm would be no more than moderate in the longer term. There would be significant countervailing landscape and visual benefits , such that landscape and scenic beauty in the National Landscape would be conserv ed and enhanc ed . 42. Accordingly , the appeal scheme would have an acceptable effect on the National Landscape and would be compatible with the Statutory Duty. Moreover, for reasons outlined above, i t would not conflict with Polic y EM10 ( Delivering High Quality Development) of the Local Plan and Policy LD2 (Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape) of the Neighbourhood Plan , nor with paragraph 189 of the Framework, the North Wessex Downs Management Plan or the Council’s Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document , July 2018 . Further Considerations Other Matters 43. Notwithstanding some of the submissions, the evidence indicates that the purpose of the Evingar Road car pa r k was at least partly to relieve on - street parking rather than replace or provide an alternative to the planned Policy SS11 car park . Policy SS11 was adopted in light of the Evingar Road proposal . I also note that the Neighbourhood Plan expressly supports the Local Plan policy for the development of a station car park north of the railway station - the Policy SS11 allocated site . Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 44. T he appeal scheme has been criticised in terms of safety and accessibility to the Station . However, notwithstanding planned and funded improvements along the intervening route, the Evingar Road car park appears likely to perform worse or no better in these respects than the appeal schem e . This is largely due to its distance from the Station and the intervening topography and quality of lighting . Nor would it p rovide step - free access to the northern platfor m in contrast to the appeal scheme . I am mindful, though , that the appeal scheme would not resolve existing issue s asso ciated with moving directly betwee n the two platforms. 45. T here is no substantiated evidence that the proposed lighting would fail to create a safe, secure and attractive environment for users of the development. In addition to these factors, the lighting scheme must also respond to the site’s sensitive location within the National Landscape, together with relevant biodiversity considerations . These are matters that would apply to any Policy SS11 compl ia nt development . There is no compelling reason to conclude that the appeal scheme would not achieve an appropriate balance between these requirements or provide a safe , secure environment for its users . 46. Need for the appeal car park or any Policy SS11 compliant car park has also been challenged. Nonetheless, the evidence of the appellant’s highways witness indicates that there is need , current and future, for extra station car parking broadly consistent with the quantum proposed . Although cri tical of that evidence , the Council produced no evidence of its own on this matter . 47. While WTCAG did produce evidence regarding nee d, it is not as comprehensive or as compelling as that of the appellant , particular ly in terms of likely future need . For i nstance, while 6 4 % of its users may currently walk to the Station, it does not follow that there is no latent rail - user dema nd to access the Station , for example, from people who live beyond reasonable walk ing distance from it . Although aspects of the network constrain the number of services that can operate through the Station , this need not place a constraint on future demand . I was advised that, given the length of the platforms and consistent with past activity, rail passenger capacity could be increased via longer trains. 48. Network Rail supports the provision of the car park , which also suggests that there is a need for the proposed scheme . For these reasons and bearing in mind that the development plan plans for car park s at both the Policy SS11 allocated site and the Evingar Road site , there is good reason to believe that there is a need for the proposed car parking. 49. The evidence also refers to other appeal decisions. Those in other areas would have been the subject of different development plan policies compared to those before me. Moreover, I am not familiar with the full circumstances of any of those cases. While I am mindful of t he importance of consistency in appeal decision making, it is also important that each decision is made on its individual merits. So, although I have taken all of the other appeal decisions into account, I have assessed and determined th is appeal on the basis of the evidence before me in the relevant policy context. Having done so, none have altered the outcome of the appeal. Interested Parties 50. In addition to the main issue s and the other foregoing matters, concern has been expressed, including by those who spoke at the Inquiry , in respect to a number of Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 considerations . These include the proposals’ effect on rights of way; on archaeology; highway safety and congestion, including for pedestrians and access for emergency vehicles; on water quality; on biodiversity ; on safety and security; on mental health; on the rural economy ; on drainage and flood risk ; on existing infrastructure; on criminal activity and antisocial behavio ur ; on access and recreational use of the countryside; and on heritage assets . 51. The concerns raised also relate to whether th ere is a genuine n eed for all elem ents of the proposed development ; c ommunity engagement over the proposals; wider proposals for the area; l andscape - wide archaeology ; land ownership ; infrastructure to support the development ; alleged shortcomings in the assessment of the development, including the environmental impact assessment and in a wide range of other respects ; bus services /facilities ; accessibility by means other than the car , including between the car park and Statio n , and within the Station ; connectivity to the settlement; the lack of station improvements ; pollution , including noise , light, water, air and odour ; the EV charging points ; climate change; train passenger capacity; the appellant’s conduct and motives; whether the café could/should be located in the settlement; and ground conditions and contamination . 52. The objections also concern w hether there would be any p ublic benefits resulting and if so whether they are overstated ; changed circumstances since the Local Plan was adopted; overdevelopment of Whitchurch; sustainability; layout and design; co mpliance with the development plan, including the Neighbourhood Plan ; loss of farmland; compliance with Whitchurch Design Statement, the North Wessex Downs Management Plan and National Nature Network Framework ; parking for people with disabilities; liaison with Network Rail and use of its land; whether exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated; dark skies; the creation of a precedent for other development; the site’s location beyond the settlement boundary; signage; the scheme’s deliverability; procedural matter s ; the emerging Local Plan; the site’s history; consultation and publicity of the propo sals ; and viability of the café . 53. These matters are largely identified and considered within the Council officer’s report on the appeal scheme such that they were before the Council when the planning application was determined. They were also before it when it prepared its evidence and when it submitted its case at the Inquiry and are largely addressed in its evidence and in the various SoCG s . Other than as set out above, the Council did not conclude that they would amount to reasons to justify withholding planning permission. I have bee n provided with no substantiated evidence which would prompt me to disagree with the Council’s conclusions in these respects subject to the imposition of planning obligations and conditions as discussed below . Planning Obligations 54. In the event that planning permission were to be granted and implemented , the planning obligations within the Legal Agreement would secure: • A Landscape Management Plan , its implementation and its maintenance ; and • On and off - site b iodiversity measures , including a Biodiversity Gain Report , Biodiversity Gain Land, Biodiversity Metric and Habitat Management and Monitoring , and long - term management , as well as a payment to support monitoring. 55. The Council has submitted a detailed statement (the CIL Compliance Statement), which address es the application of statutory requirements t o the planning Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 obligations within the Legal Agreement and set s out the relevant planning policy support / justification. 56. I have considered the planning obligations of the Legal Agreement in light of Regulation 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) and government policy and guidance on the use of planning obligations. Having done so, I am satisfied that those obligations would be required by and accord wit h the policies set out in the CIL Compliance Statement. Overall, I am satisfied that all of those obligations are directly related to the proposed development, fairly and reasonably related to it and necessary to make it acceptable in planning terms . Conditions 57. A schedule of 24 suggested conditions agreed between the Council and the appellant has been submitted, which includes the standard time limit condition. I have considered these in the light of government guidance on the use of planning conditions and made a djustments accordingly . 58. In order to provide certainty, a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans would be necessar y . To protect highway safety and the living conditions of local residents and in the interests of biodiversity, conditions would be necessary to control matters during the construction phase, including dust and air quality, and compliance with a Construction Environmental Management Plan. 59. Conditions to safeguard against contamination that might affect the site, including unsuspected contamination, along with any requisite remediation, and to control soil and other material imported to the site , would be necessary to protect the health and well - being of future occupiers and on/ off - site receptors as well as in the interests of biodiversity . Also i n the interests of biodiversity, c ondition s would be necessary to mitigate the development’s effects on protected species and their habitat . 60. Further conditions woul d be necessary to ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined / recorded . To protect the character and appearance of the area and i n the interests of biodiversity, condition s would be necessary to protect retained trees and ensure the establishment of new tree plan t ing , to secure a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan , and to control levels , earthworks and lighting . 61. Conditions to secure the installation and management of sustainable drainage would be necessary in the interests of flood prevention, to provide appropriate and adequate facilities , and to protect the environment. To ensure safe, practical and inclusive pedestrian facilities are provided, to protect the character and appearance of the area and in the interests of biodiversity, a condition to secure the delivery of an accessible link between the site and the S tation’s northern platform would be necessary . 62. A condition would be necessary to secure and control cooking fume extraction measures associated with the café to protect the living conditions of nearby occupiers. To help ensure the efficient operation of the car park and that it serves users of the S tation appropriately , a condition would be necessary to secure a Car Park Management Plan along with its implementation . Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 63. To promote the use of sustainable modes of transport and to protect the character and appearance of the area , a condition to control the provision of on - site electric vehicle charging facilities would be necessary. To protect the living conditions of neighbours , a condition to control noise and vibration from equipment within the site would be necessary. To protect highway safety and manage traffic flow, a condition would be necessary to secure and retain the vehicular access point and associated visibility splays . Planning Balance 64. The appeal scheme accords with Local Plan Policy SS11 . It would not be ‘major development’ in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . 65. There would be some adverse effects leading to some conflict with Local Plan Policy EM1. These , though, should be understood in the context of the Policy SS11 allocation. Any Policy SS11 compliant scheme would have some landscape and visual impacts. The appeal scheme’s effects would be localised and any harm would be no more than moderate in the longer term. It would have no significant effect s on trees and accord with Framework paragraph 187 . 66. There would also be benefits in landscape and visual terms compared to the approach favoured by the Council resulting from the creation of a tree belt rather than rel ying purely on on - site landscaping . 67. Overall, the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the National Landscape and be compatible with the Statutory Duty . Moreover, for the reasons outlined above, the scheme would accord with the development plan viewed as a whole and comply with paragraph 189 of the Framework . 68. Although I have not done so , had I concluded that the appeal scheme were to represent ‘major development’ , in my view the public interest in such a scheme and exceptional circumstances were already proven when the site was allocated in the Local Plan . Furthermore, t here are significant public interest considerations associated with the delivery of the appeal scheme, which in the context of the Policy SS11 allocation and wider considerations outlined above, would amount to exceptional c ircumstances in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . 69. Again, although I have not done so , h ad I concluded that the proposed development were to be in conflict with Policy SS11, I would not have concluded that there would be a breach of the Statutory Duty bearing in mind that Policy SS11 allocates car park development on a 1ha site . As the appellant points out, it would be an overextension to claim that one form of disposition of typical car parking elements within the allocated site breaches the S tatutory D uty while another may not . 70. Moreover, the appeal scheme meets the S tatutory D uty in many ways, including by supporting the use of the rail netw ork as a s ustainable mode of transport, and via biodiversity improvement s and native tree planting . It would b ring substantial benefits . Nota ble amongst these are the support that the car park would bring to rail travel as a sustainable mode of transport, the biodiversity net gain and the native planting . There are also the landscape and visual benefits relative to the Council ’s favoured approach. Although the benefits of the scheme are not a s numerous and weighty as the appellant claim s , the y would comfortably outweigh Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 the residual harm that I have identified a nd the p olicy conflict alleged by the Council , including in respect to Policy SS11 . 71. For these reasons, ther efore, the appeal scheme is undoubtedly sustainable development in the terms of the Framework and should be granted planning permission. Conclusion 72. For all of the reasons given above and , subject to the identified conditions , the appeal should be allowed. G D Jones INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 APPEARANCES 1 FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Ruchi Parekh , Counsel Instructed by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Sh e called Frank Spooner BSc(Hons) RCArborA MArborA TechCert (ArborA) VETCert (Consulting) Operations Director & Senior Consultant , Simon Jones Associates Anne Priscott BA(Hons) C ML I Anne Priscott Associates Ltd Stephanie Baker BSc(Hons) M Sc MRTPI Associate , Bell Cornwell FOR THE APPELLANT: Sasha White 2 , King’s Counse l Instructed by Bidwells H e called Thomas Eckhardt Dipl Geol CGeol Technical Director & Hydrogeologist, WSP UK Peter Wharton BSc(Hons) FArborA MICFor Director, Wharton Natural Infrastructure Consultants Ian Dix BSc(Hons) MS c CMILT MCIHT Director, Transport Planning & Mobility SLR Consulting Limited Clare Brockhurst FLI BSc(Hons) Dip LA Director, Leyton Place Limited Christopher Pattison BA(Hons) BPI MRTPI Head of Planning, Bidwells LLP FOR WHITCHURCH TOWN COUNCIL AND WHITCHURCH ACTION GROUP : Jane Piper Instructed by Whitchurch Town Council & Whitchurch Action Group Sh e called David Williams BA(Hons) Dip(Hons) LA CMLI Principal, David Williams Landscape Consultancy Ltd Jane Piper BA(Hons) B TP MRTPI Director, Lucid Planning INTERESTED PERSONS: Jacqueline Browne Local Resident & Whitchurch Action Group David Gosling Local Resident & Whitchurch Action Group 1 Brian O'Donovan, Principal Planning Office r of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council , and Billy Palmer, Partner, Planning, Bidwells, contributed to the conditions / planning obligations session 2 Mr White was assisted by Poppy Kemp, Co unsel Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 DOCUMENT S submitted at the Inquiry ID1 - The Appellant ’s Opening ID2 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council ’s Opening ID3 - Whitchurch Town Council & Whitchurch Action Group ’s Opening ID4 - Jacqueline Brown e ’s script ID5 - David Gosling ’s script ID6 - Lead Local Flood Authority Comments dated 15 January 2026 ID7 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council ’s Closing Statement ID8 - Whitchurch Town Council & Whitchurch Action Group ’s Closing Statement ID9 - The Appellant ’s Closing Statement Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS FOR APPEAL REF APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 : 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • Site location plan Dwg 1277.01 - 001 Rev B • Existing site plan Dwg 1277.01 - 010 Rev F • Proposed site plan Dwg 1277.01 - 101 Rev I • Proposed café ground floor plan Dwg 1277.01 - 102 Rev A • Proposed café roof plan Dwg 1277.01 - 103 Rev A • Proposed café elevation Dwg 1277.01 - 200 Rev B • Site Access Arrangement Dwg ITB16002 - GA - 027 Rev C • Landscape Proposals Dwg CLPD 243 P01 • Station Car Park Existing Topography (Sheet 1 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0101 Rev P01 • Station Car Park Existing Topography (Sheet 2 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0102 Rev P01 • Station Car Park Proposed Drainage Strategy (Sheet 1 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0501 Rev P02 • Station Car Park Proposed Drainage Strategy (Sheet 2 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0502 Rev P02 • Station Car Park Drainage Catchment Plan (Sheet 1 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0510 Rev P01 • Station Car Park Drainage Catchment Plan (Sheet 2 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - X C - DR - 0511 Rev P01 • External Lighting Layout Dwg 1553 - WEL - XX - XX - DR - E - 7000 Rev C03 • LV Services Layout Dwg 15 5 3 - WEL - XX - XX - DR - E - 7001 Rev C03 3) No development shall commence on site (including site preparation , any groundworks and any off - site works ) until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The approved CEMP shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The CEMP shall include, but not be limited to: • Procedures for maintaining good public relations including complaint management; • Public consultation and liaison; • Arrangements for liaison with the Council’s Environmental Protection Team; • All works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary, or at such other place as may be approved by the LPA, shall be carried out only between the following hours: 0730 Hours and 1800 Hours on Mondays to Fridays and 0800 and 1300 Hours on Saturdays and; at no time on Sundays and Public Holidays; • Deliveries and removal of plant, equipment, machinery and waste shall only take place within the permitted hours detailed above; Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 • Mitigation measures as defined in BS 5528: Parts 1 and 2: 2009 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites shall be used to minimise noise disturbance from construction works; • Procedures for emergency deviation of the approved working hours; • An undertaking to require all contractors to be ‘Considerate Contractors’ by being aware of the needs of neighbours and the environment; • Control measures for dust, dirt and other air - borne pollutants; • Measures for controlling the use of lighting whether required for safe working or for security purposes; • Means of direct access (temporary or permanent) to the site from the adjoining maintainable public highway; • The parking and turning of vehicles of operatives and visitors off - carriageway, timeframes of delivery to be provided; • The loading and unloading of plant and materials away from the maintainable public highway, where appropriate; • Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development away from the maintainable public highway; • The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; • A scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway, particularly during the peak periods (i.e. Monday to Friday AM peak (07.30 to 09.30) and PM peak (16.00 to 18.00) periods); • The routes to be used by construction traffic to access and egress the site so as to avoid undue interference with the safety and operation of the public highway and adjacent roads, including construction traffic holding areas both on and off the site as necessary; • Method of cleaning wheels and chassis of all HGV's, plant and delivery vehicles leaving the site; • Means of keeping the site access road and adjacent public highway clear of mud and debris during site demolition, excavation, preparation and construction. No vehicles shall leave the site in a condition whereby mud, clay or other deleterious materials would be deposited on the public highway; and • Implications for and management of Whitchurch Public Footpaths 248/7/1 and 248/504/1 during construction . The CEMP shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be installed and operational before any development commences and retained in working order throughout the duration of the development. 4) No works shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA): (a) A site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as being appropriate by the desk study in accordance with BS10175:2011 - Investigation of Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice; and, unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA , (b) A detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid risk from contaminants or gases when the site is developed. The scheme shall include a timetable of works and site management procedures and the nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works. The scheme shall ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and if necessary, proposals for future maintenance and monitoring. Unless part (a) identifies significant contamination, it may transpire that part (a) is sufficient to satisfy this condition, meaning part (b) need not be subsequently carried out. This would need to be approved in writing by the LPA. If during any works contamination is encountered which has not been previously identified by these reports it shall be reported immediately to the LPA. The additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme, approved in writing by the LPA. 5) No development shall take place until a mitigation method statement relating to dormice that evidences how and when works are to take place and the specific measures that shall be put in place to retain dormice populations in “favourable conservation status” in line with protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (Amended) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be delivered in accordance with the appro ved mitigation method statement. 6) No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological evaluation, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved, a programme of archaeologic al mitigation of impact shall be completed in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation. 7) No development, including land clearance, demolition, groundworks or the delivery of materials, shall commence until an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The AMS shall accord with BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations and shall include, but not be limited to: a) Details of all tree - works operations, including timing and methodology; b) Measures for the protection of all retained trees and hedgerows; c) A schedule of works to be undertaken prior to commencement of development; d) A programme of arboricultural supervision and monitoring; e) Detailed working methods for all operations within the Root Protection Areas (RPAs) of retained trees; f) Existing and proposed levels, including full details of earthworks (cut and fill), supported by cross - sectional drawings; g) Construction methodologies for hard surfacing, access construction and any special engineering solutions within RPAs; h) Details and locations of underground and above - ground services; Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 i) Details of soil amelioration and decompaction within the RPAs of trees impacted by the works; j) The siting of site compounds, storage areas, mixing areas and contractor parking; and k) A schedule of post - construction monitoring and management measures. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the approved AMS. 8) Prior to commencement of development, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) setting out the long - term management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all hard and soft landscaping features. Soft landscape details shall include planting plan, specification (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and tree establishment), schedules of planting noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate, as well as any works to enhance wildlife habitats where appropriate. In addition, implementation timetables and maintenance programmes detailing all operations to be carried out to allow successful establishment of so ft landscaping, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA before development commences. Once approved, the landscaping shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved. 9) No development shall take place until details of any earthworks, including cross - sections and full topographical details demonstrating levels and contours, and details of working within the root protection areas of retained trees detailed within an A rboricultural M ethod S tatement as per Condition 7 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For context, cross - sections and topographical information shall include reference to immediately adjacent topography. 10) No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall include: a) A technical summary highlighting any changes to the design from that within the approved Flood Risk Assessment; b) Detailed drainage plans to include type, layout and dimensions of drainage features including references to link to the drainage calculations; c) Detailed drainage calculations to demonstrate existing runoff rates are not exceeded and there is sufficient attenuation for storm events up to and including 1:100 + climate change; d) Confirmation that sufficient water quality measures have been included to satisfy the methodology in the Ciria SuDS Manual C753; and e) Exceedance plans demonstrating the flow paths and areas of ponding in the event of blockages or storms exceeding design criteria. Once approved, the scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 11) Prior to commencement of development, details of the accessible link between Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 the site and the northern platform at Whitchurch Station shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include specifications for the design of the accessible entrance to ensure suitability for wheelchair users and confirmation that there are appropriate landowner permissions for the works to allow implementation. The footpath and accessible entrance shall be made available for public use prior to first operation of the car park and thereafter retained for that purpose. The details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 12) Prior to the erection of the café building , a scheme containing full details of arrangements for internal air extraction, odour control, and discharge to atmosphere from cooking operations, including any external ducting and flues, and necessary noise control measures determined in accordance with the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems (EMAQ 2018) document, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works detailed in the approved s cheme shall be installed in their entirety before the use hereby permitted is commenced. The equipment shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and operated at all times when cooking is being carried out unless otherwise approved beforehand in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 13) Notwithstanding the annotations and table on External Lighting Layout Dwg 1553 - WEL - XX - XX - DR - E - 7000 Rev C03 , prior to installation of the lighting scheme, a written scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority that specifies the provisions to be made for the level of illumination of the accessible footpath link within the railway embankment between the car park and northern platform. The level of illumination in this area shall be no mo re than 0.2 lux on the horiz ontal plane and 0.4 lux on the vertical plane above the baseline within this area of the site. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the operation of the car park and maintained for the lifetime of the approved development and shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. 14) Details for the long - term maintenance arrangements for the surface water drainage system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first use of the car park. The submitted details shall include m aintenance schedules for each drainage feature type and confirmation of ownership. Once approved, the scheme shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved details. 15) No development above ground level shall take place until a Tree Planting and Establishment Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The Plan shall include: a) The location, species, specification and size of all proposed tree planting; b) Details and cross - sectional drawings of tree planting pits, including soil specification, drainage, aeration and irrigation measures where applicable; c) Details of tree support and protection measures; d) A programme for implementation; and e) A five - year establishment and maintenance schedule. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 20 All tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Plan in the first planting season following completion of the development or such other timetable as approved in writing by the LPA. Any tree planted pursuant to this condition which dies, is removed, becomes seriously damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with a tree of the same species and specification, unless otherwise approv ed in writing by the LPA. 16) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of Condition 4 that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of Condition 4 has been implemented fully in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written approval of the LPA in advance of implementation). Unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA such verification shall comprise: a) As built drawings of the implemented scheme; b) Photographs of the remediation works in progress; and c) Certificates demonstrating that imported and/or material left in situ is free of contamination. Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the scheme approved under Condition 4, unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA. 17) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority certificates demonstrating that a) sufficient sampling of imported material has taken place and b) the imported material is free from unacceptable levels of contamination. Sampling shall take place in situ at a frequency of 1 per 100m 3 . 18) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until a Car Park Management Plan has be en submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include the following details: a) Details of car parking layout to include allocated areas; b) The proposed allocation and arrangement of parking spaces , including disabled blue badge bays; c) The provision of Electric Vehicle Charging Points ; d) A delivery plan for the car park, café and lockers; e) Car parking charges; f) The management responsibilities together with contact details (name , address , telephone , email); g) Maintenance arrangements; h) Enforcement measures; i) Management details of all soft landscape components where these fall within the areas covered by the Plan; j) Management details of all hard landscape elements where these fall within the areas covered by the Plan; k) Maintenance operations for both hard and soft landscape components summarised in chart format stating the frequency and duration over the Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 21 lifetime of the Plan; l) Cleaning operations including graffiti and fly - tipping removal pressure washing re - painting; m) Failed component re - design and installation liabilities/responsibilities/timings; and n) A scheme of review of the Plan to ensure that it remains relevant to the parking requirements of Whitchurch Station. The scheme of review shall be undertaken at five yearly intervals and shall not be more than ten yearly intervals. The car parking shall be provided and managed in accordance with the approved Plan thereafter, or as otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 19) Prior to first use of the electric vehicle car charging points, details of electric vehicle charging provision shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the specification, appearance and siting of any charging points. Once approved, the scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 20) All recommendations outlined in the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment report number 80769 - SRL - RP - YA - 002 - S2 - P1 shall be implemented and completed before the use, hereby approved, is first commenced and shall be thereafter retained and maintained, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 21) Development shall be undertaken in accordance with the Ecology Report dated December 2023 and Addendum Ecology Report dated July 2025 by Applied Ecology including the recommendations made at Section 4. 22) Following completion of archaeological fieldwork, a report produced in accordance with an approved programme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority setting out and securing appropriate post - excavation assessment, spe cialist analysis and reports, publication and public engagement. 23) The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) under C ondition 7 and shall be subject to supervision by a suitably qualified and experienced Arboricultural Clerk of Works (ACoW). The ACoW shall: a) Attend a pre - commencement site meeting with the developer, principal contractor and Local Planning Authority (if required by the Local Planning Authority); b) Oversee the installation of tree protection measures; c) Supervise all operations within the Root Protection Areas of retained trees; d) Monitor compliance with the approved A MS throughout construction; e) Undertake a post - construction inspection and attend a project completion meeting; and f) Submit written site supervision records to the Local Planning Authority of items a - c; at approved intervals as per the approved AMS for item d; and upon completion of development. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 22 No works within the Root Protection Area of retained trees shall take place unless the ACoW is present and has confirmed that the methodology accords with the approved AMS. 24) No development shall take place until the access point and visibility splays as shown in Site Access Arrangement Dwg ITB16002 - GA - 027 Rev C have been laid out and constructed in accordance with the relevant details shown on that drawing. Thereafter they shall be retained for that purpose and kept clear of obstructions .⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
The appeal scheme accords with Local Plan Policy SS11 . It would not be ‘major development’ in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . 65. There would be some adverse effects leading to some conflict with Local Plan Policy EM1. These , though, should be understood in the context of the Policy SS11 allocation. Any Policy SS11 compliant scheme would have some landscape and visual impacts. The appeal scheme’s effects would be localised and any harm would be no more than moderate in the longer term. It would have no significant effect s on trees and accord with Framework paragraph 187 . 66. There would also be benefits in landscape and visual terms compared to the approach favoured by the Council resulting from the creation of a tree belt rather than rel ying purely on on - site landscaping . 67. Overall, the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the National Landscape and be compatible with the Statutory Duty . Moreover, for the reasons outlined above, the scheme would accord with the development plan viewed as a whole and comply with paragraph 189 of the Framework . 68. Although I have not done so , had I concluded that the appeal scheme were to represent ‘major development’ , in…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3374652 (City of Westminster Council) — 2026-05-26
📍 City of Westminster Council LPA code: E09000033 PINS reference: 3374652 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 January 2026 by Laura Cuthbert BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 th May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/X5990/W/25/3374652 24 - 26 Spring Street, London W2 1JA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant consent, agreement or approval to details required by a condition of a planning permission . • The appeal is made by Nando's Chickenland Ltd against the decision of City of Westminster Council. • The application Ref 25/04962/ADFULL sought approval of details pursuant to condition No 4 of a planning permission Ref 25/02998/FULL , granted on 28 June 2025 . • The application was refused by notice dated 12 August 2025. The development proposed is Replacement shopfront. (Linked with 25/02999/ADV ). • The details for which approval is sought are : Details drawings of the left hand bay pursuant to condition 4 of planning permission dated 27 June 2025 (RN: 25/02998/FULL) as outlined o n drawing nos GA Ground Floor Plan (drawing ref. (01)001_C); • Proposed Elevation 1 (drawing ref. (01)100_D); and • Proposed Elevation 2 (drawing ref. (01)10 1 _D). Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and the details submitted pursuant to condition No 4 attached to planning permission Ref 25/02998/FULL granted on 28 June 2025 in accordance with the application dated 17 July 2025 and the details submitted with it , namely drawing nos GA Ground Floor Plan (drawing ref. (01)001_C); Proposed Elevation 1 (drawing ref. (01)100_D); and Proposed Elevation 2 (drawing ref. (01)10 1 _D) , are approved. Preliminary Matters 2. I carried out my site visit in January 2026. Following the visit, I was advised that, due to a cyber - attack, the Council had been unable to process appeals. These issues have now been resolved, and I have since received the Council’s Statement of Case. I a m therefore now in a position to determine the appeal. 3. The shopfront details submitted by the appellant to discharge c ondition 4 have already been implemented on site and accord with th e shopfront design shown o n the proposed plans . I have determined the appeal on that basis. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the submitted details are satisfactor y to discharge Condition No. 4, having regard to their effect on the character and appearance of the area, including whether they preserve the significance of the Bayswater Conservation Area. Appeal Decision APP/X5990/W/25/3374652 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Reasons 5. The appeal site comprises a commercial premises at 24 – 26 Spring Street, formed of adjoining late 19th - century, three - storey terraced buildings. The ground floor contains a shared shopfront with a return to Conduit Place, while the upper floors feature deco rative sash windows with stucco detailing. The re mainder of Spring Street includes retail, restaurants, public houses and estate agents at ground floor level with residential uses above . 6. The site lies within the Bayswater Conservation Area (CA) , which is predominantly characterised by 19th - century terraces of consistent proportions, strong architectural rhythm, including vertical pilasters , and high - quality detailing, accommodating a mix of residential and commercial uses. My site visit confirmed this description to be generally accurate . There are many listed properties in the wider locality, including Paddington Underground Station. Nos 24 – 26, and the terrace in which they sit, contribute positively to the significance of the CA , which for the purposes of this appeal, derives from its historic architectural interest and coherent townscape. 7. The Council identifies that a lthough unlisted, Nos 24 - 26 are regarded as non - designated heritage assets under the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) , given their age, architectural quality, and contribution to the streetscape. As this is not disputed by the appellant , I consider them to be non - designated heritage assets of moderate significance. 8. I note from the planning history that earlier applications 1 for shopfront alterations and associated advertisements were refused, with the treatment of the left - hand bay identified as the principal design concern. 9. The subsequent approved scheme, to which the disputed condition relates, retained a solid form in this location. However, the Council accepted that the matter could be addressed by condition. Condition 4 therefore required the submission of revised shopfro nt details, including the provision of a traditional timber and glazed frontage to the left - hand bay, consistent with the approved bays to the right (with glazing capable of being obscured if necessary). 10. The shopfront design as shown in the submitted details and consequently as implemented, represents a clear improvement on the previously proposed solid frontage, particularly through the introduction of a largely glazed elevation which reduces visual bulk and creates a more active street presence. 11. The inclusion of the sub - pilaster reflects the established vertical rhythm and articulation of the terrace, where such features are a defining characteristic. It is slightly wider than the other sub - pilasters , more akin in width to those positioned between properties that typically support party walls at upper storey level . However, t he treatment of the left - hand bay integrates satisfactorily with the wider shopfront, resulting in a visually coherent frontage. The column and glazing reflect the proportions and character of the overall design, while also accommodating structural and operational requirements, including maintaining an uninterrupted cookline. I also note that this part of the shopfront has historically accommodated a n infill panel , lending further support to the acceptability of the shopfront design . 1 Planning Application Refs 25/00486/FULL and 25/00487/ADV, refused 3 April 2025, Appeal Decision APP/X5990/W/25/3374652 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 As such, it does not appear as incongruous when considered within the overall shopfront composition. 12. In terms of detailing, any differences between the new elements and the original pilasters are limited , partly due to their consistent black finish . When viewed in the context of the commercial shopfront as a whole, any differences are not unduly prominent or harmful to the streetscene or the wider CA . The prominence of the ground floor, by virtue of its position adjacent to the pavement, does not in itself result in harm, and the shopfront design responds appropriately to the host building and surrounding townscape . 13. Therefore, for the reasons set out above , the shopfront design appear s as proportionate and appropriately integrated with the host building. It maintain s the established character and appearance of the terrace and preserves the significance of the Bayswater CA , and the significance of the non - designated heritage asset s o f moderate significance . As such, I conclude that the shopfront design preserve s the character and appearance of the area and satisf ies the statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 14. For similar reasons, the shopfront design does no t conflict with Policies 38, 39 and 40 of the City Plan 2019 - 2040 (adopted April 2021) . Together these policies seek high - quality and sensitive design , having regard to the prevailing character , materials, architectural quality and degree of uniformity . Development within conservation areas should preserve or enhance their character and appearance, conserving heritage assets in a manner proportionate to their significance. Positive features, including unliste d buildings that contribute positively, should be retained, with opportunities taken to secure enhancements where possible. 15. The Council cite conflict with the advice contained in the 'Shopfronts, Blinds and Signs' d esign guide (adopted 1993). However, no specific element of the design guid e has been identified with which the proposed shopfront conflicts . In any event, having found the details to be acceptable, the shopfront design is considered to accord with the underlying objectives of the guidance, which makes clear that its purpose is not to prescribe precise approaches to shopfront design or to discourage imaginative solutions, but rather to provide general guidance for the al teration, replacement and restoration of shopfronts. Conclusion 16. Based on the evidence before me, for the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the details submitted in relation to the left - hand bay, pursuant to condition 4 of planning permission Ref. 25/02998/FULL, are acceptable. Accordingly, the condition can be discharged, and the appeal is allowed. Laura Cuthbert INSPECTOR⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
As such, I conclude that the shopfront design preserve s the character and appearance of the area and satisf ies the statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 14. For similar reasons, the shopfront design does no t conflict with Policies 38, 39 and 40 of the City Plan 2019 - 2040 (adopted April 2021) . Together these policies seek high - quality and sensitive design , having regard to the prevailing character , materials, architectural quality and degree of uniformity . Development within conservation areas should preserve or enhance their character and appearance, conserving heritage assets in a manner proportionate to their significance. Positive features, including unliste d buildings that contribute positively, should be retained, with opportunities taken to secure enhancements where possible. 15. The Council cite conflict with the advice contained in the 'Shopfronts, Blinds and Signs' d esign guide (adopted 1993). However, no specific element of the design guid e has been identified with which the proposed shopfront conflicts . In any event, having found the details to be acceptable, the shopfront design is consider…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3373972 (Cornwall Council) — 2026-05-26
📍 Cornwall Council LPA code: E06000052 PINS reference: 3373972 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 March 2026 by Juliet Rogers BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 Land a djacent to Valley Lane, Quenchwell Road, Carnon Downs, Cornwall TR3 6JS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant permission in principle . • The appeal is made by Mr M Yates and Mrs C Mitchell against the decision of Cornwall Council. • The application Ref is PA25/01765. • The development proposed is the construction of a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 5 dwellings. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the construction of a minimum of 4 and a maximum of five dwellings at Land adjacent to Valley Lane, Quenchwell Road, Carnon Downs, Cornwall TR3 6JS , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/01765. Preliminary Matters and Main Issues 2. As part of the appeal, the appellant has submitted a Preliminary Landscape Visual Appraisal 1 . As t his was not before the Council when the application was determined and the subject of consultation, were I to take this into account as part of my decision this would result in procedural unfairness as intere sted parties may not have had the opportunity to provide comments on it . I have, therefore, determined the appeal based on the details submitted considered by the Council a t the application stage . 3. The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing - led development. The permission in principle consent route has two stages. The first stage establis hes whether a site is suitable in principle with the scope of the considerations limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted 2 . All other matters are then considered as part of the second stage, via a Technical Details Consent (TDC) application , including detailed development proposals should permission in principle be granted . This appeal relates to the first of these two stages. Given the limited scope of the application, I have treated any details submitted which c onstitute elements beyond matters relating to location, land use and amount as being indicative . 4. The appeal site is located within the catchment of the Fal and Helford Special Area of Conservation (SAC), a European Designated Site afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2009 (as amended). Whilst not 1 Prepared by FPCR, dated September 2025 2 Paragraph: 012 Reference ID: 58 - 012 - 20180615 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 indicated as a reason for refusal, it is incumbent upon me, as the competent authority, to consider whether the proposal would be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the SAC. As the main parties have addressed this as part of the application, no party would be prejudiced by this matter being dealt with as a main issue. 5. Consequently , the main issues are: • whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development , with particular regard to the local development strategy and the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area ; and • whether the proposal would be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the Fal and Helford SAC . Reasons Local development strategy 6. Policy 2 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 - 2030 (Local Plan) establishes the objectives which underpin the spatial strategy for the delivery of new development, emphasising that growth will be accommodated in the main towns and city where it can best support regeneration. This hierarchical approach is expanded within Policy 3 of the Local Plan through the identification of the main settlements. Carnon Downs is not identified as a main settlement . Notwithstanding this, Policy 3 of the Local Plan does not restrict housing growth from areas other than at the main towns but rather indicates the circumstances where such development would be appropriate. 7. The circumstance o f relevance to the appeal site is where residential development would result in the rounding off of a settlement, within or immediately adjoining it, and of a scale appropriate to its size and role. While the term ‘rounding off’ is not defined within Policy 3 of the Local Plan itself, its supporting text refers to it comprising development on land that is substantially enclosed but outside of the urban form of a settlement and where its edge is clearly defined by a physical feature (or fea tures) that also act as a barrier to further growth. 8. The appeal site is also located beyond the Carnon Downs settlement boundary, as defined within the Feock Neighbourhood Development Plan (FNDP) . The site boundary is separated from t his designation , other than where access off Valley Lane is p roposed, by an area identified in the FNDP as a sensitive sett lement edge which encompasses part of the small stream valley. Properties marked on the Location Plans as The Beeches and The Willows adjoin the site; - bo th of which are also located beyond the settlement boundary . The refore, the site is not within Ca rn on Downs boundary nor is it located immediately adjoining it. 9. The boundaries to the site are clearly defined by landscape features comprising established hedgerows , Quen chwell Road , the aforementioned residential properties and the Carnon Downs Garden Centre . As similarly concluded by the Inspector on a previous appeal 3 , these features e nclose the site and would act as a significant barrier to further growth. 3 Appeal ref: APP/D 0840/W/23/3327622 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 10. Nonetheless, Policy 7 of the Local Plan stipulates that the development of new homes in open countryside , defined as the area outside of the physical boundaries of existing settlements (where they have a clear form and shape), will only be permitted where there are special circumstances. In this case, the designated settlement boundary within the FNDP establishes the physical boundary of the site. As the proposal does not meet any of the special circumstances to development in the open countryside, it confl icts with Policy 7 of the Local Plan . 11. My attention has also been drawn to the CPOAN 4 which further elaborates upon Policy 3 of the Local Plan , highlighting the attributes considered to be components of a suitable site for r ounding off , including that it is likely to be surrounded on at least two sides by existing built development. In the case of the appeal site , the garden centre adjoins one side boundary with The Beech es adjacent another and, t ogether with Quenchwell Road, these surround the equivalent of at least two sides of the site. 12. However, due to the use of the word ‘likely’ is not a prescriptive requirement and, in any event, the contents of the CPOAN provides guidance only to the application of Policy 3 of the Local Plan . It does not form part of the adopted development plan. Furthermore, whether or not a s ite can be described as surrounded by existing built development also requires an assessment of the components which contribute to the character and appearance of an area. 13. As the appeal site is separated from the existing dwellings on Valley Lane by the wooded sensitive edge and the enclosed generous garden setting of The Beeches, visual connections between these properties and the site were partially restricted by existing landscape features at the time of my site visit . However, the presence of the built form nearby is appreciable from various locations within the site, giv en the topography of the stream’s valley. In particular, t he white render ed exterior of the properties between the site and Bissoe Road mean they are prominent features in these views. Similarly, the scale and bulk of the garden centre buildings and the presence of good s and equipment stored close to the sparsely vegetated boundary provides a feeling of being surrounded by built for m . 14. In contrast, visual connections to Quenchwell Road were, at the time of my site visit, blocked by the dense planting on parts of this edge of the site and, due to its elevated position, the carriageway itself wa s hidden. Other than noise from traffic moving along it , the road’s influence on the character of the site is minimal. However, when travelling along the road, particularly towards Carnon Downs, the site is appreciated as a clear gap in the bu i lt form, betwee n the garden centre and the properties between Valley Lane and Bissoe Road and, to a lesser extent, The Beeches. Beyond its junction with Valley Lane , the site forms part of a n area of transition from the main settlement form into the countryside. As similarly observed by the Inspector on the previous appea l, this point of change corresponds with the designated settlement boundary. 15. The situation on the ground also reflects the description of the Cornwall Character Area for Carnon Valley (CCA15) being located within the shelter of a valley where fields are smaller and boundary more sinuous. The proposal would, therefore, result in an extension of Carnon Downs . This is not disputed by the appellant. Furthermore , although t he ability of the site to lend itself to a successful 4 Chief Planning Officer’s Advice Note: Infill/Rounding Off (December 2017) (CPOAN) Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 agricultural enterprise is limited by its small scale and accessibility , these factor s do not alter my conclusio ns regarding the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area, even with the retention of the field pattern and boundary features. 16. S ince the previous appeal, t raffic calming measures have been introduced on Quenchwell Road between its junction with Valley Lane and the garden centre . These works include a highway build out to provide priority to those travelling south along the road , new street lighting and signage , and the relocation of the settlement sign to the other side of the garden centre. T hese changes have , to a small degree, urbanised the highway . However, they have not altered the character of the site nor its immediate surrounds to a degree sufficient for me to conclude the introductio n of residential development in this location would not lead to the visual extension of Carnon Downs into the countryside . 17. Additionally, the recently constructed residential development off Ash Tree Close 5 and the further five dwellings approved in 2024 6 on l and adjoining it , are located nearer to the main form of the settlement and before the aforementioned point of change which travelling out of Carnon Downs . Given the openness to the road near Ash Tree Close and the dominance of built form rather than natural features, these new developments have a character more readily associated with Carnon Downs , despite also located beyond the designated settlement boundary. 18. I conclude that the proposal would not be suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development , with particular regard to the local development strategy and the character and appearance of the area . It, therefore, conflicts with policies 2, 3, 7, 12 , 21 and 23 of the Local Plan which, combined, set out the local development strategy whilst seeking to protect the local landscape and built form character through, amongst other things, making the best use of land . I attach great weight to t he proposal’s conflict with the local development stra tegy while the harm to the character and appearance of the area would be moderate. 19. The decision notice indicates that the proposal conflicts with Policy 8 of the Local Plan. However, as this policy relates to the provision of affordable housing within developments comprising ten (10) dwellings or more, Policy 8 is not determinative in my decision. The fact that the proposal is not seeking to meet the definition of a rural exception site as set out in Policy 9 is not, in and of itself, a reason to refuse the application . Fal and Helford SAC 20. The special interest of the Fal and Helford SAC relates to the saltmarsh, mudflat, sandbank and reef habitats of interest that, amongst others, make up the drowned river valleys of the Fal Estuary and Helford River. The overarching objective for the management of the SAC is the ongoing protection of these internationa lly important habitats. One of the issues preventing this objective being met relates to the increased pressure to access the area for recreational purposes, as well as from urbanisation and da mage caused by pets, resulting from a rise in the population living nearby. 5 Reserved Matters Ref: PA19/11087; dated 23 April 2020 6 Council Ref: PA23/10329 ; dated 21 October 2024 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 21. As the proposal would lead to an increase in the number of people living in the area, it would, therefore, lead to an increase in the number of visitors to the SAC for recreational purposes. When considered alone or in combination with other plans or proje cts, it would have the potential to result in likely significant effects on the SAC. Consequently, it is necessary for me, as the competent authority, to conduct an Appropriate Assessment concerning the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the SAC. 22. As part of the application, the appellant submitted a signed s111 undertaking, together with a fee based on the number of dwellings proposed. This reflects the mitigation fees set out within the Council’s European Sites Mitigation Supplementary Planning Do cument (SPD), as required by policies 22 and 23 of the Local Plan. The Council will use the fees to deliver a Strategic Access Management and Monitoring project for the SAC, so that it is more resilient to visitor pressure. 23. I conclude therefore, that, subject to mitigation, the proposal would not be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the SAC and accords with policies 22 and 23 of the Local Plan, and the SPD in this respect. Other Considerations 24. Several concerns have been made by interested parties regarding the proposal , some of which have already been addressed in the reasoning above . The evidence before me indicates that , as a small part of the site is susceptible to surface water flooding (1 in 100 year) and rainfall (1 in 1000 year), a flood risk assessment will be required as part of any application for TDC. No works to the trees to the rear of the properties along Valley Lane, alongside the stream, form part of the proposal and this area, in any event, lies outside the site boundary. 25. Others relate to detailed development proposals, such as the effect of the proposal on drainage , the condition of Valley Lane, the potenti al to provide a footpath link through the development and biodiversity matters. As such, they fall to be considered at the TDC stage, should such an application be submitted. An application for TDC must be decided in accordance with terms of the permission in principle granted for the site and the relevant policies in the development plan, unless there are material consid erations , such as the Framework, which indicate otherwise. The granting of permission in principle does not mean that a n application for TDC will automatically be approved . Planning Balance and Conclusion 26. The provision of four or five additional dwellings would be beneficial to the local housing stock, with social and economic benefits derived from their construction and occupation. The use of a greenfield site where the re would be an increase in building density gains some support from Policy 21 of the Local Plan f rom an environmental perspective. Given the s ize of the proposal, although these benefits would be moderate in scale, they could be delivered quickly. 27. However, I have found that the site would not be suitable for residential development given its conflict with the local development strategy and it would lead to a moderate level of harm to the character and appearance of the area. My conclusion relating t o the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the SAC is a Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 neutral matter. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole. 28. The evidence before me indicates that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five - year supply of deliverable housing sites, with the latest position, as set out within the Cornwall 5 Year Housing Land Supply Statement (1 July 2025), representing a 3.9 year supply. This deficit is not insignificant and represents a materially different housing supply position from the previous appeal was determined a s, at that time, a five - year supply of deliverable housing sites could be demonstrated. 29. The consequence of the housing supply position is that the presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 11dii of the Framework is engaged . This states that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole . As the FNDP was made in 2017, it exceeds the age required at paragraph 14 of the Framework to meet the exemption to the aforementione d presumption. 30. While t he hierarchical approach to the distribution of new homes across the Council’s area set out at Policy 2 of the Local Plan is broadly consi stent with the Framework as a whole , as confirmed in the Cornwall Interim Policy Position Statement 7 (CIPPS) , the Local Plan’s housing targets are not . Therefore, as also identifie d in the CIPPS, the weight given or the way Policy 3 is applied in decisions has changed as a result of the current housing land supply deficit . I attach moderate weight to the proposal’s conflict with Policy 3 . 31. Policies 7, 12 , 21 and 23 of the Local Plan are broadly consistent with the Framework’s approach to ensuring development is sympathetic to its local character and landscape setting, as well as the enhancement of the natural environment . As I have found that the proposal would lead to a moderate level of harm to the character and appearance of the area, I attach a corresponding moderate weight to the proposal’s conflict with these policies. 32. Consequently, I conclude that the adverse impact s of the proposal do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. 33. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed . Juliet Rogers INSPECTOR 7 April 2025 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3373972 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
The provision of four or five additional dwellings would be beneficial to the local housing stock, with social and economic benefits derived from their construction and occupation. The use of a greenfield site where the re would be an increase in building density gains some support from Policy 21 of the Local Plan f rom an environmental perspective. Given the s ize of the proposal, although these benefits would be moderate in scale, they could be delivered quickly. 27. However, I have found that the site would not be suitable for residential development given its conflict with the local development strategy and it would lead to a moderate level of harm to the character and appearance of the area. My conclusion relating t o the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the SAC is a
⚖️ 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.