🏆 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 3331533 (North Yorkshire Council) — 2024-05-02
📍 North Yorkshire Council PINS reference: 3331533 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 March 2024 by S J Lee BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 65 Wetherby Road, Knaresborough, North Yorkshire HG5 8LH The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. The appeal is made by Gladman Retirement Living against the decision of North Yorkshire Council. The application Ref is ZC23/02201/DVCMAJ. The application sought planning permission for d evelopment of r etirement a partments with care (Use Class C2) including the demolition of existing buildings, formation of new vehicular access, parking, retaining structures, hardstanding, sewer diversion, er ection of substation, refuse and maintenance stores, with associated works to trees, landscaping, formation of communal facilities and amenity space without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 21/02251/FULMAJ, dated 19 December 2 022 . The condition in dispute is No 2 which states that: The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following drawings as mo dified by the further conditions of this permission: Location Plan 09999 - P2 - 201, Site Plan 09999 - P2 - 203 Rev B, Building Appearance 09999 - P2 - 232 Rev A, Building Elevations 09999 - P2 - 231 Rev A, Floor Plans 1 09999 - P2 - 221 Rev A, Floor Plans 2 09999 - P2 - 222 Rev A, Site Sections 09999 - P2 - 214 Rev A, Site Sections 09999 - P2 - 212 Rev A, Landscape Strategy 0 9999 - P2 - 241 Rev B, Materials Statement 09999 - P2 December 2021 Rev A . The reason given for the conditio n is: In order to ensure compliance with the approved drawings . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development of ret irement apartments with care (Use Class C2) including the demolition of existing buildings, formation of new vehicular access, parking, retaining structures, hardstanding, sewer diversion, erection of substation, refuse and maintenance stores, with associa ted works to trees, landscaping, formation of communal facilities and amenity space at 65 Wetherby Road, Knaresborough, North Yorkshire HG5 8LH in accordance with the application Ref ZC23/02201/DVCMAJ , without compliance with condition numbers 2, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 28 previously imposed on planning permission Ref 21/02251/FULMAJ dated 19 December 2022 and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule . Preliminary Matters and Background 2. Following the submission of the appeal, the Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The policies relevant to this appeal did not change significant ly and thus it was not necessary to consult Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 the parties. Where necessary, I have had regard to the new Framework in my d ecision. 3. The approved permission sought to deliver 61 apartments. This application was subsequently amended under section 96(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to reduce the number of units to 55. From what I understand, this did not alter the ov erall design of the building, which remained no higher than 3 - storeys. 4. The proposal seeks to increase the number of apartments back to 61 through amendments to the approved drawings. Th e proposal would introduce a fourth storey on one part of the building. The Council refused permission for this on the basis that the changes to the approved scheme would be harmful to local distinctiveness and character . Main Issue s 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 6. The principle of development has already been established and construction is already underway. There is clearly more than a theoretical likelihood that the extant permission would be implemented in full if this appeal were dismissed. This is a very significant material consideration. The outcome of this appeal does not affect the extant permission . As such, it is not necessary for me to consider the principle of development or whether the approved element s remain acceptable . I have therefore limited my consideration to the difference in effect between the approved plans and the proposed revisions. 7. The revised plans would result in the creation of one 4 - storey element on the northern part of the building. The remainder of the building, including its broad design, height, footprint and materials used would not change. The scale and massing of the majority would therefore remain as approved . What is permitted already cons titutes a building that would be highly prominent in the street scene . This would particularly be the case when travelling along Wetherby Road. The addition of a fourth storey would increase this prominence to an extent , although it would make up only a relatively small part of the building overall . From some viewpoints, the change would not be perceived at all. However, even from where it would be more obvious on Wetherby Road, the additional storey would have a relatively small effect overall visual impact on the area. 8. The site is set at a substantially lower level than surrounding buildings . As such, although the fourth storey element would appear taller than 63 Wetherby Road, this would not be by a significant amount. There would also be a reasonable space between No 63 and the four - storey part of the building such that it would not appear as an unduly intensive or imposing structure. While f our storey buildings may not be prevalent in the area, the topography of the area means that th e development would not appear untoward, nor would it compete with buildings farther afield, such as the listed C hurch. This is some distance away and would not be affected by the development. I am therefore Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 satisfied that the alterations sought would comp lement what has been permitted and not stand out as an unduly incongruous of discordant feature. 9. Moreover, the plans do not suggest that the outward appearance of the building would change dramatically from what has been permitted . Part of the building would be taller , but the additional storey would match the detailing of the rest of the building . As such, it would complement what has already been considered acceptable. There would also be a high degree of articulation across the building , both in terms of height and footprint, which would break up the mass of the building , such that it would not appear as a monolithic structure . The variation in materials would also provide a degree of visual interest that would also help break up the structure While some trees may have already been removed, there are conditions requiring the implementation of a landscaping scheme. While this may not completely screen the development, particularly the upper storeys, it would still help to soften the over all impact of the building. 10. Overall, I do not consider the increase in height of part of the building would result in a materially more harmful impact than what has already been permitted. The additional storey would increase the prominence of the building to a degree, but this would be subsumed within the overall impact of what would be a large building in any event. Given what has been approved, t he additional storey would not appear out of place . The changes in levels would ensure the development would n ot appear excessively tall or intrusive . As the revised design s do not differ in terms of materials or general appearance, I also do not consider they would be harmful to local distinctiveness . 11. I am therefore content that the revisions to the plans would not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be no conflict wi th Harrogate and District Local Plan 2014 - 2035 (2022) Policy H P3 which seeks, am ongst other things, to ensure development protects, enhances or reinforces local characteristics. There would also be no conflict with paragraph 13 5 of the Framework, which includes provision for development to add to the overall quality of the area, be vi sually attractive, and sympathetic to local character. Other Matters 12. The site lies with in the setting of the Grade II listed Grimbald Bridge. It is also within the Knaresborough Conservation Area. The principle of development has already been established a nd t he effect of development considered acceptable. The incre ase in height of part of the building would have no additional impact on the setting of the bridge or the significance of the conservation area. The revised plans would therefore have a neutral e ffect on the heritage assets . This does not weigh against the proposal . 13. T he distance s between buildings would ensure that any increase in h eight would no t have an undue impact on the outlook or privacy of existing dwellings . While the development may be more prominent in views from nearby dwellings, including those on Fountains View, it would not have an overbearing impact on existing properties. There should also be no greater impact in terms of noise or disturbance. T he pr oposed development would not therefore have a materially greater effect on the living conditions of any occupants than the permitted scheme. There should also be no greater impact Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 on highways or highway safety, especially as 61 dwellings were initially per mitted. 14. Any issues relating to the works currently underway , including concerns about health and safety or removal of trees , are outside the scope of the appeal . use of this procedure or their motives for changing t he design have not had any bearing on my decision. Whether or not there is a need to change the design is also not a matter for me to consider. From the evidence before me, the previously refused application for a 4 - storey development differs to what is be fore me and thus does not weigh against this proposal, which I have considered on its own merits. I am also content that the of these matters alter my decision. Conditions 15. By allowing this appeal a new planning permission is created. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that, for clarity, decision notices for the grant of planning permission under S 73 should restate the conditions imposed on earlier permissions that contin ue to have effect, unless they have already been discharged. The Council and appellant have suggested new conditions that seek to reflect those which have already been discharged . It is permissible under S 73 to impose new conditions provide d they do not ma terially alter the development. It is therefore logical for these to replace discharged conditions where they meet the relevant tests. 16. Where I have no information about the status of other conditions imposed on the original planning permission, I shall im pose all those that I consider remain relevant. In the event these have since been discharged, that will be a matter which can be addressed by the parties. 17. I have imposed a condition stipulating the timescales for which development must start. I have amen ded the suggested condition such that it reflects the date of the original permission. A decision made under S73 cannot extend the time period within which a development must start (1) . For certainty, I have imposed a condition establishing the approved pl ans . Here I have used the list provided by the Council (2) . In the interests of highway safety and accessibility , I have re imposed conditions requiring the delivery of the site access , off - site mitigation measures and footpath improvements ( 3,4,5,6) . I have also included new conditions in these respects which reflect the matters already discharged. 18. In the interests of the living conditions of nearby residents and safety, I have imposed a condition requiring adhere nce to the previously agreed Construction Method and Management Statement (7) . For the same reason, I have re imposed a condition requiring the approval and implementation of a Parking Management Strategy (31). In the interests of tree protection, I have re imposed conditions relating to tree protection (8,9). In the interests of flooding , drainage and water management , I have reimposed the conditions relating to f inished floor levels, flood mitigation, avoiding the existing sewer , foul and surface water mit igation measures , the approved drainage strategy and the Flood Evacuation and Management Plan (10 , 11, 12, 13 , 22 , 29 , 30 ) . 19. To ensure issues relating to ground conditions and potential mitigation are addressed I have imposed conditions requiring adherence to the previously Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 agreed Geo - Environmental Report and Remediation Strategy (14, 15, 16). I have reimposed the condition relating to the completion of any measures in the Remediation Strategy (17). 20. In the interests of the living conditions of nearby residents I have reimposed the conditions relating to odour control (18). The appellant has indicated that a discharge of condition application had been made at the time of the appeal. However, I have had no confirmation of the outcome of this and so the original condition is imposed. For the same reasons, I have reimposed the conditions relating to light and noise ( 19, 20). 21. In the interests of biodiversity, I have imposed a condition ensuring adherence t o the previously agreed Construction Environmental Management Plan (21). In the interests of character, appearance and biod iversity, I have reimposed the conditions relating to the approval and implementation of a landscaping scheme (23 , 24 ). Again, I have no information as to whether a pending discharge of condition application has been approved and thus have used the original wording for condition 23 . 22. conditions relating to electric vehi cle charging points and solar panels (25, 26). The latter condition reflects changes previously approved by the Council as a non - material amendment. In the interests of character and appearance, I have reimposed conditions relating to window design (27). F or the same reason, I have imposed a condition requiring adherence to previously agreed details relating to materials (28). 23. Where the suggested conditions from the Council and appellant differ , I have suggested wording . This is bec ause I do not have any detailed information as to what has been approved or not as part of any discharge of condition. I am content, however, that all of the conditions are necessary and meet the relevant tests. Conclusion 24. The proposal accords with the development plan as a whole and thus, f or the reasons given above , I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will gra nt a new planning permission without the disputed condition but substituting others and restating those undisputed conditions that are still subsisting and capable of taking effect. S J Lee INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 19 December 2025 . 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following drawings: Location Plan 09999 - P2 - 201 Site Plan 09999 - P2 - 203 Rev B Building Elev ations 09999 - P3 - 331 Floor Plans 1 09999 - P3 - 321 Floor Plans 2 09999 - P3 - 322 Site Sections 09999 - P2 - 214 Rev A Site Sections 09999 - P3 - 312 Landscape Strategy 09999 - P2 - 241 Rev B 3) The development must not be brought into use until the access to the site has been set out and constructed in accordance with the Specification for Housing and Industrial Estate Roads and Private Street Works" published by the local h ighway a uthority and the following requirements unless otherwise approved in writing by the local Highway Authority. The crossing of the highway verge and footway must be constructed in accordance with the approved details to Standard Detail number E7, be a minimum of 5.5 metr es in width, and provide the footway link to the existing footpath as shown on the approved drawing P18017 - 001E. i Any gates or barriers must be erected a minimum distance of 4.8 metres back from the carriageway of the existing highway and must not be able to swing over the existing or proposed highway. ii Provision to prevent surface water from the site/plot discharging onto the existing or proposed highway must be constructed in accordance with the approved details shown on drawing Standard Detail E7 and ma intained thereafter to prevent such discharges. iii The final surfacing of any private access within 6 metres of the public highway must not contain any loose material that is capable of being drawn on to the existing or proposed public highway. iv The existing footway crossing point on Wetherby Road must be upgraded to include tactile crossing guidance, and where the new proposed footpath link joins the existing footpath network, the footway width must be widened to 2 metres. v Measures to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. All works must accord with the approved details. 4) There must be no access or egress by any vehicles between the highway and the application site until splays are provided giving cle ar visibility of 2.4 metres x 56 metres measured along both channel lines of Wetherby Road from a point measured down the centre line of the access road. Once created, these visibility splays must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained for the ir intended purpose at all times. Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 5) No part of the development must be brought into use until the vehicle access, parking, manoeuvring and turning areas have been constructed in accordance with the following plans approved under application 23/00197/DISCON unless alternative details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority : Vehicular, Cycle and Pedestrian Access and Parking 09999 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 003 Rev P02; Highways S278 New Entrance GA 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 002 Rev P02; S wept Path Refuse Vehicle 09999 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 004 Rev P01; Swept Path Delivery Vehicle 09999 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 005 Rev P03; Swept Path Fire Tender 09999 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 007 Rev P01. Once created these areas must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained fo r their intended purpose at all times. 6) The following schemes of off - site highway mitigation measures must be completed as indicated below: 1. Uncontrolled crossing northwest of proposed access. Uncontrolled crossing improvements to include: Widening of d ropped kerbs; Removal of existing tactile paving to the back of footway; Tactile paving to be provided for extent of dropped kerbs; Northern footway to be widened and cleared of debris; Existing 'Reduce Speed now' signage to be relocated outside of proposed footway; Existing road markings to be replenished; Additional 'SLOW' road markings to be provided on approach to existing road hump. 2. Vegetation/ debris within Wetherby Road southe rn footway: Clear vegetation/debris and tidy up the general appearance of the footpath. 3. Substandard tactile paving, poor road surface and worn road markings at Wetherby Road/ Abbey Road junction. Junction improvements to include: Wider dropped kerbs either side of junction; Tactile paving to be provided for extent of dropped kerbs and laid to a depth of 1200mm - Road to be resurfaced where necessary; Road markings to be replenished. 4. Substandard crossing facilities at turning head east of Grimbald Bridge. Crossing facilities to include: Dropped kerbs on either side of the turning head to be located along the desire line; Tactile paving to be provided for extent of dropped kerbs and laid to a depth of 1200mm; Amendments to th e footway on the eastern side of the crossing to improve pedestrian desire line to either northern/ southern KR1. 5. Misleading tactile/ substandard tactile paving arrangements at various uncontrolled crossing points east of Grimbald Bridge. Existing tact ile paving layout to be removed as this is misleading for the visually impaired, and replaced with suitable tactile paving/corduroy hazard Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 warning surface arrangements appropriate for shared cycle track/footway crossings. 6. Construction of the approved f ootpath link and associated infrastructure improvements as shown on plan P21094 - 006A dated 3 May 2022. The above highway improvement works must be carried out using an approved NYCC contractor and be completed prior to the proposed development's first occ upation. An independent Stage 2 Road Safety Audit must be carried out in accordance with GG119. Road Safety Audits or any superseding regulations must be included in the submission and the design proposals must be amended in accordance with the recommenda tions of the submitted Safety Audit prior to the commencement of works on site. A programme for the delivery of that scheme and its interaction with delivery of the other identified schemes must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to construction works commencing on site. Each item of the off - site highway works must be completed in accordance with the following engineering details and programme approved under application 23/00589/DISCON unless alternative details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority : H ighways 278 Extent of Works - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 001 Rev P02 Highways 278 Adoption Plan - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 000 Rev P01 Highways 278 New Entrance GA - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 002 Rev P03 Highways 278 Existing Services - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 003 Rev P07 Highways 278 Crossing Upgrades Sheet 1 of 2 - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 004 Rev P02 Highways 278 Crossing Upgrades Sheet 2 of 2 - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 005 Rev P02 Highways 278 Road Markings, Signs & Sight Lines - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 006 Rev P02 Highways 278 Construction Deta ils - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 010 Rev P02 Services Diversions Report, Adlington, January 2023 Stage 2 Road Safety Audit - 610/2022/155/01 Rev 1, 12 November 2022 Stage 2 Road Safety Audit Designers Response, Adlington, December 2022. 7) Unless alternative detai ls have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority construction of the permitted development must be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan Construction Method and Management St atement by Gladman Homes LLP, March 2023. Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 8) Prior to any operations commencing on the site in connection with the development hereby approved (including any demolition work, soil moving, bringing materials onto site, temporary access construction and/or wid ening or any operations involving the use of motorised vehicles or construction machinery), the developer shall implement the agreed specification for root protection area (RPA) and detail (as per FPCR Arboricultural Assessment dated April 2021) fencing in line with the requirements of British Standard BS 5837: 2012 Trees in Relation to Construction - Recommendations, or any subsequent amendments to that document, around the trees or shrubs or planting to be retained, as indicated on the approved plan and f or the entire area as specified in accordance with BS 5837:2012. The developer shall maintain such fences until all development the subject of this permission is completed. 9) The applicant is to retain, throughout the development process, including the prop osed tree planting (as per the approved plans), the arboricultural consultant who is to forward a monthly progress report to the LPA. The progress report is required to demonstrate that the trees are being protected in accordance with the submitted detail, and any approved Method Statement or other documentation, during the course of the development. The retention of the arboricultural consultant will aid in the development process where it applies to trees in all forms eg no dig road, Root Protection Area enforcement and tree planting. 10) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment (ref SHF.1255.004.HY.R.002.G dated December 2021) and the following mitigation measures it details within section 5: Finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 36.55metres above Ordnance Datum (AOD); There is to be no built development within flood zone 3b and no raising of ground levels within flood zone 3. All excess spoil is to be removed from the floodplain and disposed of appropriately; The development shall be constructed with a floodable basement, the sole purpose of which shall be for the storage of flood flows. The basement is to be built in accordance with drawing Nos 09999 - P2 - 215 & 09999 - P2 - 232, should be designed an d built to drain by gravity, and, is to have a soffit of 35.85mAOD. The basement is also to have a floodable volume of at least 600m3. The basement is to be managed and maintained as per Table 5.4 of document SHF.1255.004.HY.R.005.B so that the full flood storage volume remains available for the lifetime of the development. A detailed management and maintenance plan should be agreed with the LPA prior to occupation of the development. These mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the scheme's timing/ phasing arrangements. The measures detailed above shall be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development. 11) No building or other obstruction including landsca pe features shall be located over or within: a) 3.5 (three point five) metres either side of the centre line of the public 675 mm diameter sewer i.e. a protected strip width of 7 (seven) metres, that crosses the site; and b) 3 (three) metres either side of the centre line of the public 225 mm diameter sewer i.e. a Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 protected strip width of 6 (six) metres, that crosses the site. If the required stand - off distance is to be achieved via diversion or closure of the sewer, the developer shall submit evidence to t he local planning authority that the diversion or closure has been agreed with the relevant statutory undertaker and that prior to construction in the affected area, the approved works have been undertaken . 12) The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site. The separate systems should extend to the points of discharge to be agreed. 13) There shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development p rior to the completion of surface water drainage works, details of which will have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority . If discharge to public sewer is proposed, the information shall include, but not be exclusive to: i) Evidenc e that other means of surface water drainage have been properly considered and why they have been discounted; and ii) The means of discharging to the public sewer network at a rate to be agreed by the local planning authority in consultation with the stat utory sewerage undertaker. 14) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Phase II Geo - Environmen tal Report SHF.1255.012.GE.R.001.A dated November 2022 by Enzygo Geo Environmental. 15) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority site remediation shall take place in strict accordance with the land contamination remediation strategy contained in the approved Phase II Geo - Environmental Report SHF.1255.012.GE.R.001.A dated November 2022 by Enzygo Geo Environmental. 16) Land contamination remediation of the site shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the Remediation Strategy approved pursuant to condition 15. In the event that remediation is unable to proceed in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy or contamination not previously considered or identified in either the P reliminary Risk Assessment or the Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report is identified or encountered on site, all groundworks in the affected area (save for site investigation works) shall cease immediately and the local planning authority shall be notified in writing within 2 working days. Works shall not recommence until proposed revisions to the Remediation Strategy have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . Remediation of the site shall thereafter be carried o ut in accordance with the approved revised Remediation Strategy. 17) Following completion of any measures identified in the approved Remediation Strategy or any approved revised Remediation Strategy a land contamination Verification Report shall be submitted to the local planning authority . No part of the site shall be brought into use until such time as the remediation measures have been completed for that part of Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 the site in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy or the approved revised Remediatio n Strategy and a Verification Report in respect of those remediation measures has been approved in writing by the local planning authority . Where verification has been submitted and approved in stages for different areas of the whole site, a Final Verifica tion Summary Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . 18) Prior to the commencement of the external construction of the walls of the development hereby approved a scheme containing full details of arrangements for internal air extraction, odour control, and discharge to atmosphere from commercial cooking operations, including any external ducting and flues, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The works detailed in the appro ved scheme shall be installed in their entirety before the use hereby permitted is commenced. The equipment shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and operated at all times when cooking is being carried out unless otherwise agreed beforehand in writing with the local planning authority . 19) Prior to the first occupation of the development a scheme for the minimisation of the effect of light glare on nearby properties shall be submitted to the local planning authority for written approval. The submitted scheme shall include an isolux diagram showing the predicted luminance in the vertical plane (in lux) at critical locations on the boundary of the site and at adjacent properties. The approved works shall be completed be fore any lighting equipment to which this approval relates to is operated and shall be maintained during such operation for the life of the development. 20) Before the development is first brought into use, all works which form part of the sound attenuation s cheme as specified in the Noise Report, dated April 2021, reference GM10886, Version 004 V1 Final and produced by Wardell Armstrong : a) Shall be completed; and b) Written evidence to demonstrate that the specified noise levels (including the noise design criteria for all mechanical plant and extraction systems) have been achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . If it cannot be demonstrated that the noise levels specified in the aforementioned Noise Report hav e been achieved, then a further scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority incorporating further measures to a chieve those noise levels. All works comprised within those further measures shall be completed and writte n evidence to demonstrate that the aforementioned noise levels have been achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is first brought into use. 21) Unless alternative details have first been sub mitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the development hereby permitted must be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Construction Ecological Management Plan Rev A by FPCR dated 23.02.23 and approved under applicatio n 23/00089/DISCON. All subsequent works on site must be undertaken in accordance with the approved CEMP, which must be Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 incorporated as a biodiversity chapter of the wider site Construction Environmental Management Plan. Species - specific enhancements such a s the provision of faunal boxes must be in place prior to the first occupation of the new building. A copy of the Construction Ecological Management Plan must be available on site and accessible to site operatives at all times during construction. 22) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the development hereby permitted must be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Drainage Strategy and Calculations by Adlington Retirement Living dated December 2022 and the Sustainable Drainage Management and Maintenance Plan by Adlington Ret irement Living dated December 2022. The flowrate from the site shall be restricted to a maximum flowrate of 3.5 litres per second to public sewer for up to the 1 in 100 year event. A 30% allowance shall be included for climate change effects for the lifeti me of the development. Storage shall be provided to accommodate the minimum 1 in 100 year plus climate change critical storm event. The scheme shall include a detailed maintenance and management regime for the storage facility. No part of the development s hall be brought into use until the development flow restriction works comprising the approved scheme has been completed. The approved maintenance and management scheme shall be implemented throughout the lifetime of the development. 23) A detailed scheme for landscaping, including the planting of trees (in broad accordance with the submitted Tree Mitigation Plan drawing no. 8603 - L - 01 Rev G & 8603 - L - 02 Rev G dated 8 May 2021) and or shrubs and the use of surface materials shall be submitted to the local plannin g authority prior to the commencement of any external construction of the walls of the development hereby approved. The scheme shall specify materials, species, tree and plant sizes, number and planting densities and the timing of the implementation of the scheme, including any earthworks required. The landscape scheme is to be implemented the planting season (October to March) after completion of the permitted development . 24) In the event of failure of any trees or shrubs, planted in accordance with any scheme approved by the local planning authority , to survive for a period of five years from the date of completion of implementation of that scheme, such trees or shrubs shall b e replaced by the developer with such live specimens of such species in such number as may be approved by the local planning authority . 25) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the dev elopment hereby permitted must be carried out in strict accordance with the electric vehicle infrastructure strategy and implementation plan as set out in the Electric Vehicle Charge Points Document v2 and the External Works Plan 00000 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 000 Rev P07 approved under application 23/00090/DISCON. The development shall be carried out as approved with charging points installed prior to occupation. 26) Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the installation of the solar panels shall be submitted in writing for the Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 written approval of the local planning authority . The scheme shall include: (a) Details of design and specification of the solar panels; (b) Timing of installation; and (c) Submission of MCS Certificates upon completio n. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. 27) The windows on the permitted development, unless alterative details are submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority , shall have 75mm window re veals. 28) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the development shall be constructed in strict accordance with the materials approved under application ZC23/01543/DISCON. 29) Prior to fir st occupation of the development a Flood Evacuation and Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. 30) Notwithstanding det ails as approved by Condition 2, should any further alterations be considered necessary to levels on site, full details of existing and proposed site levels, finished floor levels and any changes to the surrounding landform must be submitted in writing to the local planning authority and approved prior to any such changes taking place. 31) Prior to first occupation of the development a Parking Management Strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The development sha ll be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Schedule ends.⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Conclusion 24. The proposal accords with the development plan as a whole and thus, f or the reasons given above , I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will gra nt a new planning permission without the disputed condition but substituting others and restating those undisputed conditions that are still subsisting and capable of taking effect. S J Lee
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3329099 (Peterborough City Council) — 2024-05-02
📍 Peterborough City Council PINS reference: 3329099 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - i nspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 April 2024 by R Gee BA (Hons) Dip TP PGCert UD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/J0540/W/23/3329099 111 Park Road, Peterborough PE1 2TR 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 Eastfield Guesthouse Ltd against the decision of Peterborough City Counci l. The application Ref is 23/00882/FUL. The development proposed is described as rear ground floor annex extension to existing hotel to provide 2 additional rooms. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for rear ground floor annex extension to existing hotel to provide 2 additional rooms at 111 Park Road, Peterborough PE1 2TR in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/00882/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached sched ule. Preliminary Matters 2. The appeal site is situated within the Park Conservation Area (CA). I have therefore born in mind the statutory requirements placed upon decision - makers by section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Ac t, 1990 (the Act). 3. Since the submission of the appeal a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in December 2023. Those parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not been amended. As a result, I have not soug ht further submissions on the revised Framework, and I approach. Main Issue s 4. The main issues are : i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, with particular regard to whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Park CA ; and ii) the effect of the proposed development upon the living conditions of existing and future occupiers, with particular regard to amenity space. Appeal Decision APP/J0540/W/23/3329099 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 R easons Character and appearance 5. The existing property is set back from the public highway behind a low wall and an area of hardstanding. The appeal site lies to the rear of the three - storey building and would be positioned on an area of land currently laid to grass, enclosed by close - boarded fenc ing and a relatively high wall. The existing ho tel has previously been extended and altered . The a ppeal site lies within a relatively dense urban area where I observed a number of structures to the rear of buildings . 6. The appeal site lies within the Park CA . This is a relatively large conservation area that covers a predominantly residential area, although I also observed a number of commercial uses, shops, parks and churches. The significance of the CA stems from its layout as a model housing area, including public parks with tree planting common throug hout the CA, contributing to its special character. The Council considers the existing property to be a locally listed building, and therefore a non - designated heritage asset , which contributes positively to the CA . I have no reason to disagree with that v iew . 7. The proposed building would be sub ordinate to the host property . The proposal incorporates a pitched roof that would be reflective of existing built form , particularly the existing single storey rear addition . Furthermore, the proposed external finish would be in - keeping with the existing property. Given the limited scale and design of the proposal the development would not harmfully detract from the existing property. 8. T he proposal would occupy much of the curr ently undeveloped space to the rear of the host property. However, o wing to its siting to the rear o f the existing building the proposal would no t be visible from Park Road . It would also be obscured from view Road by existing built form . As such the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. 9. For the reasons stated above, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and would preserve th e character or appearance of the Park C A. Accordingly, the proposal accords with Policy LP16 of the Peterborough Local Plan 2019 (LP) a s the building form, including size, scale, massing, density, details and materials would be in - keeping with its surroundings and would make efficient use of land . The proposal would accord with the Framework insofar as it seeks to ensure design is high - quality and is sympathetic to local character. Living Conditions 10. Local Plan Policy LP17 s tates that new developmen t should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenity of existing occupier s through the loss of amenity space. It goes on to state that proposals should be designed to ensure the needs of future occupiers are provided for, including communal amenit y space in the case of apartments/flats. T he policy does not include any space standards and is not explicit on the need for amenity space for hotel accommodation. I therefore afford limited weight to the conflict with this policy in the determination of t his appeal. Appeal Decision APP/J0540/W/23/3329099 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 11. The proposed development would occupy the majority of the appeal site . H owever, there would remain some external space around the building that c ould be used for amenity purposes, including seating. In addition, just a short walk from the site I observed areas of publicly accessible green open space. 12. For the reasons stated , the proposed development would not have a harmful impact upon the living conditions of existing and future occupiers, with particular regard to amenity space. I therefore find no conflict with Policy LP17 of the LP in this regard . The proposal would accord with the Framework insofar as it seeks to create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Other Matters 13. The proposed development wo uld be partially within the r oot p rotection a rea of a Cedar and Cherry tree, positioned on neighbouring land . B oth incursions are minor. I am satisfied that , subject to the imposition of a condition for compliance with the Arboricultural Method Statement & Tree Protection detail , contained in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment 1 (AIA) , that the appeal site would be capable of accommodat ing the development without causing material harm to the se trees . 14. It is asserted that the development would result in the loss of vie w from adjacent properties. However, a change of view from a private window is not in itself regarded as a material planning consideration . Nevertheless, I am satisfied that due to the proposed single storey height and the limited scale of development that the proposal would not be harmful to the outlook of the occupiers of neighbouring properties . 15. Further to concerns regarding in sufficient parking th is matter was considered by the Council and did not form part of their reason for r efusal . T he local highway authority do not raise an objection noting the urban location, being well - served by public transport and the availability of nearby public parking. Based on the evidence before me and observations from my site visit, I have no reason to reach a different view. 16. A n additional two bedrooms is unlikely to result in a material increase in noise and disturbance to the detriment of the living conditions of existing occupiers. Conditions 17. In addition to th e standard time limit co ndition , I have imposed a condition that requires the development to accord with the approved plans and AIA . This is necessary in the interest of certainty . A condition requiring the external facing materials to match the existing building is necessary in order to preserve the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 18. The appeal is allowed. R Gee INSPECTOR 1 BS5837:2012 - Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. AIA, AMS & TPP in relation to trees at 109 - 111 Park Road, Peterborough p repared by East Midlands Tree Surveys Ltd date: 10/07/2023 Appeal Decision APP/J0540/W/23/3329099 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 Schedule of Conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permiss ion. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 507SD02 Site Location Plan , 507SK 01 Rev F Proposed Floor Plans , 507SK02 Rev B Proposed Elevations , 507SK03 Rev B Proposed Site Plan , Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan and Tree Constraints Plan . 3. The materials to be used in the cons truction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. ***End of Schedule** *⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
14. It is asserted that the development would result in the loss of vie w from adjacent properties. However, a change of view from a private window is not in itself regarded as a material planning consideration . Nevertheless, I am satisfied that due to the proposed single storey height and the limited scale of development that the proposal would not be harmful to the outlook of the occupiers of neighbouring properties . 15. Further to concerns regarding in sufficient parking th is matter was considered by the Council and did not form part of their reason for r efusal . T he local highway authority do not raise an objection noting the urban location, being well - served by public transport and the availability of nearby public parking. Based on the evidence before me and observations from my site visit, I have no reason to reach a different view. 16. A n additional two bedrooms is unlikely to result in a material increase in noise and disturbance to the detriment of the living conditions of existing occupiers. Conclusion 18. The appeal is allowed. R Gee
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3331969 (Leeds City Council) — 2024-03-18
📍 Leeds City Council PINS reference: 3331969 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 January 2024 by D Boffin BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI, DipBldg Cons (RICS), IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18/03/2024 Appeal B Ref: APP/N4720/W/23/3331969 Cliff Oaks, Fawcett Lane, Wortley, Leeds LS12 4FG The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the 1990 Act) against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73A of the 1990 Act for the d evelopment of land carried out without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. The appeal is made by Priestley Homes (Cliff Oaks) Ltd against the decision of Leeds City Council. The application Ref: 23/02622/F U, dated 19 May 2023, was refused by a notice dated 24 July 2023. The application sought planning permission for s even houses with car parking and landscaping without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref : 16/08004/FU , dated 28 Ju ne 2017 . The condition in dispute is No 5 which states that: No building works shall take place until details and samples of all external roofing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The roofs shall be constructed from the approved materials. The reason given for the condition is: In the interests of visual amenity. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for seven houses with car parking and landscaping at Cliff Oaks, Fawcett Lane, Wortley, Leeds LS12 4FG in accordance with the application Ref 23/02622/FU , without compliance with condition number 5 previously imposed on planning permission Ref : 16/08004/FU dated 28 June 2017 and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters and Background 2. Section 73 A applications are commonly said to be seeking to vary or remove conditions to which an existing planning permission is subject . However, that is not strictly the case . If such applicat ions (or appeals against their refusal) succeed, a completely new planning permission is created that stands alongside the original one. As the original permission , 16/08004/FU (the 2016 permission), was for the erection of seven houses with car parking a nd landscaping I have used this description in the formal decision and banner heading. 3. Condition 5 of the 2016 permission was discharged 1 on the 3 June 2020 . The appellant has stated that the roofing material submitted to a nd approved by the Council was Spanish slate in dark grey . Planning permission was granted on 3 November 2021 (the 2021 permission) for 1 Ref: 20/01136/COND Appeal Decisions APP/N4720/W/23/3331969, APP/N4720/F/23/3318304 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 (Approved Plans) to previously approved planning application 16/08004/FU for alterations t . Condition 2 of the 2021 permission stated that those as approved via condition discharge Ref: 20/01136/COND, including 4. The dwellings have been constructed and the appellant has stated that Marley Edgemere Interlocking Slate in Anthracite has been used as the roofing materials rather than Spanish s late . A breach of condition notice 2 was issued by the Council on the 14 Decembe r 2022 relating t o the roofing materials installed on the seven houses. 5. An adjacent building, Cliff House , is grade II listed and therefore section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act) is relevant in the determination of this appeal . I t requires the decision maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed buil ding or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest. Main Issue 6. The main issue is the effect of ret aining the existing roofing materials on the character and appearance of the surrounding area taking into account the special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of Cliff House and the contribution that setting makes to its significance . Reasons 7. The dwellings have been constructed within the generous grounds associated with Cliff House . Th ose dwellings are set back an appreciable distance from and on a higher ground level than Fawcett Lane , as is Cliff House . Within the grounds of Cliff House there are also former outbuildings/stables and an entrance lodge . S urrounding those grounds on this side of Fawcett Lane is Western Flatts Cliff Park . The combination of the gr ounds to Cliff House, the park and the mature landscaping within them imparts a verdant and open character and appearance to th e area surrounding Cliff House. 8. A ccording to the official list entry Cliff House dates from the early 19 th Century . It is built of ashlar with a hipped slate roof and when c onstructed it was a large house . It is now in use as several apartments after being repaired and refurbished following extensive damage caused by a fire . Based on my observations and the evidence before me I consider that the significan ce/special interes t of Cliff House largely derives from its age, the quality of its architectural features , plan layout and historic fabric. 9. It is the central element of its generous grounds, and it is experienced in views from Fawcett Lane , from the access drive approaching it and from within the grounds . It is located on higher ground and due to the sloping topography, it appears to have been designed to take advantage o f views across the wider landscape. Moreover, the lodge and access dr ive appear to have been designed to impress any visitors with a sense of arrival to this large house . As a result, the setting provided by the grounds makes a positive contribution to the overall special interest/significance of Cliff House. 2 Ref: 22/00467/NCP3 Appeal Decisions APP/N4720/W/23/3331969, APP/N4720/F/23/3318304 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 10. The terrace o f seven dwellings is seen in views from Fawcett Lane and the access drive with Cliff House . It is apparent that the terrace ha s been designed as contempor ar y and modern dwellings using stone facing for the front elevation and dark framed windows . T he dark grey /black colouring and relatively flat surface of the tiles on the terrace roof gives them a similar appearance to Spanish slate when seen from a distance . However, in closer views it is apparent that the leading edge of the tiles are thicker than slate and that they do not possess the subtle variations in colour and texture found in Spanish slate . 11. Nevertheless, the terrace is located in a position where it is set back from Fawcett Lane and there are mature trees and some landscaping between the t errace and that lane. Moreover, due to the height, design and location of the roof of Cliff House that roof is not visible with the terrace roof in views from Fawcett Lane . In addition, it is clearly a pparent that whilst and material s are sympathetic to and inspired by Cliff House, they are contemporary and modern . The side elevation of the terrace facing Cliff House is constructed from buff - coloured bricks rather than stone . In that context the roofing tiles do not appear incongruous on the terrace. 12. Furthermore, w hen a pproaching Cliff House , from either direction, on Fawcett Lane a combination of the topography , the outbuildings/stables, the lodge and the boundary treatme nts ensures that Cliff House is largely screened in medium distance views. Nevertheless, when close to the access drive entrance Cliff House and the terrace are visible . Yet due to its size , age and sense of grandeur Cliff House attracts and remains the focus of attention in views when approaching on the access drive . In addition, the retention of the tiles has no impact on the verdant and open character and appearance of the surrounding area. 13. Taking into account all of the above , the ability of the view er to understand and appreciate the listed special interest/ significance is unaffected by the retention of the tiles . Therefore, there is no impact on the contribution that setting makes to the significance /special interest of Cliff House . Consequently, in my judgment , the significance/special interest of the listed building and the character and appearance of the surrounding area are preserv ed. It follows that the non - compliance with condition 5 of the 2016 permission does not conflict with Policy GP5 of the retained Unitary Development Plan (UDP) which states , amongst other things, that development proposals should resolve detailed planning considerations . Nor does it conflict with Policies P10 and P11 of the Core Strategy which state, amongst other things, that new development for buildings and spaces, should provide good design that is appropriate to its location, scale and function and t he historic environment will be conserved and enhanced. It also complies with chapters 12 and 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework . Other Matters 14. UDP Policy N19 but this policy relates to new buildings and extensions within or adjacent to conservation areas and I have no evidence to indicate that there is a conservation area on or adjacent to the appeal site. As a result, it is not relevant to the appeal before m e. Appeal Decisions APP/N4720/W/23/3331969, APP/N4720/F/23/3318304 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 Conditions 15. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) makes clear that decision notices for the grant of planning permission under section 73 should restate the conditions imposed on earlier permissions that continue to have effect. With the development now bein g occupied, some previous conditions attached to the 2016 permission are no longer relevant. The evidence before me indicates conditions 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 , 13, 15 and 16 the 2016 permission have been discharged by the Council. Conditions 6 , 7 , 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18 and 19 were not imposed on the 2021 permission and therefore in my judgment they are unnecessary, and I have deleted them . 16. I have deleted Conditions 1 , 3, 7 , 9 , 13, 15 and 16 o n the 2016 permission, as neither the standard time limit condition nor the pre - commencement condition s which have been discharged are necessary. Nevertheless, conditions 10 and 15 on the 2016 permission appear to have ongoing management implications and were reimpo sed on the 2021 permission. I have amended the wording of these conditions to require compliance with the approved details/management plans as ongoing compliance with them is necessary. 17. The 2021 permission amended condition 2 with regard to the approved pl ans therefore I have amended the wording of condition 2 , on the 2016 permission , to take that into account . I have re imposed conditions 12 and 14 to ensure the protection of wild birds during the breeding season and to ensure that the Council have control over extensions , alterations and outbuildings given the sensitivity of the site being within the setting of Cliff House. Conclusion 18. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will grant a new planning permission without the disputed condition and restating those undisputed conditions that are still subsisting and capable of taking effect. D Boffin INSPECTOR Appeal Decisions APP/N4720/W/23/3331969, APP/N4720/F/23/3318304 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 19113 - 140 ; 19113 - 142 ; 19113 - 701 ; 19113 - 702 . 2) The landscape management plan , approved on 9 February 2021 by the discharge of condition approval Ref: 20/08390/COND , shall be implemented as approved. 3) The surface water drainage works, approved on 30 November 2020 by the discharge of condition approval Ref: 20/07584/COND , shall be implemented as approved. 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Orde r 2015 (or any Orders revoking or re - enacting that Order with or without modification) planning permission shall be obtained before any development contained in Classes A - E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of that Order is carried out. 5) No site clearance or removal of any trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be carried out during the period 1 March to 31 August inclusive unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
With the development now bein g occupied, some previous conditions attached to the 2016 permission are no longer relevant. The evidence before me indicates conditions 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 , 13, 15 and 16 the 2016 permission have been discharged by the Council. Conditions 6 , 7 , 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18 and 19 were not imposed on the 2021 permission and therefore in my judgment they are unnecessary, and I have deleted them . 16. I have deleted Conditions 1 , 3, 7 , 9 , 13, 15 and 16 o n the 2016 permission, as neither the standard time limit condition nor the pre - commencement condition s which have been discharged are necessary. Nevertheless, conditions 10 and 15 on the 2016 permission appear to have ongoing management implications and were reimpo sed on the 2021 permission. I have amended the wording of these conditions to require compliance with the approved details/management plans as ongoing compliance with them is necessary. 17. The 2021 permission amended condition 2 with regard to the approved pl ans therefore I have amended the wording of condition 2 , on the 2016 permission , to take that into account . I have re imposed Conclusion 18. For the reasons given above I conclude t…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3331252 (Braintree District Council) — 2024-03-18
📍 Braintree District Council PINS reference: 3331252 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 February 2024 by Elaine Benson BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 th March 2024 Appeal Ref: A PP/ Z1510/D/23/3331252 1 The Courtyard , Bradford Street , Br aintree , Essex C M7 9DE The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Tim Powell against the decision of Braintree District Council . The application Ref 2 3/02093/HH , dated 3 September 2023 was refused by notice dated 1 2th October 2023 . The development proposed is to c hange w indows from the current material - w ooden frames, to uPVC frames . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permi ssion is granted for c hang ing w indows from w ooden frames to uPVC frames at 1 The Courtyard, Bradford Street, Braintree, Essex CM7 9DE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2 3/02093/HH , dated 3 September 2023 , subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be the c a rried out in accordance with the submitted product design specifications by Bluemanor Windows Ltd , photographs , Location Plan and Block Plan . Main Issue 2. Th e main is sue in this appeal is whether the proposed works would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Bradford Street Conservation Area (the Conservation Area ) , a designated heritage asset, and their effect on its signifi c ance . Reasons 3. The Conservation Area defining characteristics include the predominantly Georgian buildings and a few late 20 th Century infill dwellings. Its character and appearance are mainly deriv ed from older buildings along the road frontages where traditional windows and architectural detailing are widely evident. The appeal site is within The Courtyard which is set back b ehind the frontage of Bradford Street from where there are limited views of the development . 4. The design of The Courtyard is sympathetic to and broadly reflects the character of the area. It comprises a modern group of four properties and garages which was granted planning permission in 1998. A s the Council accepts, th e development does not contribute to the historic significance of the Conservation Area . The distinctiveness of The Courtyard lies with its layout of Appeal Decision APP/ Z1510/D/23/3331252 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 perimeter buildings around a hardstanding and its set back location behind the Bradford Street buildings . The houses are timber clad, except for No 4 which has a brick external finish. The group has a uniform appearance in terms of its form, height and massing and windows design. T here is no Article 4 direction relating t o T he Courtyard . 5. It is proposed to replace the timber windows at No 1 with uPVC windows. The window openings would be unchanged and the existing glazing pattern would be copied . T he appeal property already has a uP VC c onservatory at the rear and a side elevation window with uPVC window bars. T he use of uPVC in the conservatory was considered acceptable because the rear of the property could not be seen from the street. As observed at my site visit, none of the property is visible from Bradford Street, due to the set back of the development from the street and the location of No 1 at i t s end . The Council states that the proposal would introduce uPVC windows into the Conservation Area. However, it has also been used at t he neighbouring No 4 and in t he four houses in the 6. I n my judgement, timber windows are not essential to the signifi c a nce of the appeal property bec a u s e its signifi c a nce i s not derive d historic construction and materials . Within the context set out above, t he proposed windows would not affect t he charact er or appearance of No 1 ; T he Courtyard as a whole , n or undermine i t s original design intent . As the windows would be part of a modern building set behind the street frontage buildings, they would have a neutral effect on the Conservation Area , preserving i t s character , appearance and significance . 7. I conclude that the proposal c omplies with t he aims of Braintree District Local Plan Policies SP7, LPP36 , LPP47, LPP52 and LPP53 which in summary, collectively and of relevance to this appeal, require that the design and materials of a lteration s should be compatible with the original dwelling and character of the area and are sensitive to the need to conserve and enhance local features of architectural and historic importance, particularly within Conservation Areas . There would be no conflict with the conservation objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework . 8. In accordance with the statutory duty, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised , the appeal is allowed. Condition 9. A condition is necessary which identif ies the approved specifications , photographs and plans for the avoidan ce of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. Elaine Benson INSPECTOR
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3329693 (Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council) — 2024-03-18
📍 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council LPA code: E07000084 PINS reference: 3329693 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - i nspectorate Appeal Decision s Site visit made on 20 February 2024 by J Bowyer BSc(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 th March 2024 Appeal A Ref: APP/H1705/W/23/3329693 Sherfield Court, Reading Road, Church End, Sherfield - on - Loddon, Hampshire RG27 0JB The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr K Adams against the decision o f Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. The application Ref 23/01425 / FUL, dated 5 June 2023, was refused by notice dated 29 August 2023. The development proposed was originally described a s new garage door in new structural opening . Proposed removal of existing external personnel door and installation of new internal personnel door to access the sunken feature. Appeal B Ref: APP/H1705/Y/23/3329694 Sherfield Court, Reading Road, Church End, Sherfield - on - Loddon, Hampshire RG27 0JB The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 against a refusal to grant listed building consent. The appeal is made by Mr K Adams against the decision of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. The application Ref 23/01426/LBC, dated 5 June 2023, was refused by notice dated 29 August 2023. The works proposed were originally described as new garage door in new structural opening. Proposed removal of existing external personnel door and installation of new internal personnel door to access the sunken feature . Decision s Appeal A 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for new garage door in new structural opening at Sherfield Court , Reading Road, Church End, Sherfield - on - Loddon, Hampshire RG27 0JB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 23/01425/FUL , dated 5 June 2023 , subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The developme nt hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans : 221510/01 (New Garage Door and Opening Location Plan) , 22151/003 (New Garage Door and Opening Existing Plans and Elevation) and 221510/04 Rev C (New Garage Door and Opening Proposed Plans and Elevation); and 221 510/03 New Garage Door and Opening Block Plan) only insofar as it relates to the location of the proposed new garage door. Appeal Decisions APP/H1705/Y/23/3329694 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Appeal B 2. The appeal is allowed and listed building consent is granted for new garage door in new structural opening at Sherfield Court , Reading Road, Church End, Sherfield - on - Loddon, Hampshire RG27 0JB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 23/01426/LBC , dated 5 June 2023 and the plans subm itted with it , only insofar as they relate to the location of the proposed new garage door , subject to the following conditions: 1) The works authorised by this consent shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) No works shall take place until details of the design of the garage door including plans and elevations at a scale of not less than 1:20 and details of the materials to be used in the construction of the garage door in new structural opening hereby authorised have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 3) No works shall take place until a schedule and methodology detailing the installation of the garage door in new structural opening and works of making good have been submitted to and approved in writing by the L ocal P lanning A uthority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved meth odology . Pr eliminary Matters 3. The appeal relates to a single - storey building located to the north east of Sherfield Court . Sherfield Court is a grade II listed building ( Ref: 1339605) and f or the purposes of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act , a listed building includes any structure that is within its curtilage which has existed since before 1st July 1948. As a structure within the curtilage of Sherfield Court that has a principal and accessory relation ship to the main building , the appeal building is consequently listed. The re are also further structures within the curtilage of Sherfield Court, a s well as other listed buildings in the vicinity including the Church of St Leonard which is a Grade II listed building (Ref: 1092816). 4. As the proposal relates to a listed building and is in the vicinity of other listed building s , I have had special regard to sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Act. 5. As part of the appeal s , the appellant provided amended plans that were also submitted to the Council b efore it determined the applications . These amen d ed the proposal to omit the initially indicated removal of an existing personnel door and installation of new internal personnel door to access the sunken feature . T he y also amend the proposed garage door from a roller shutter to a segmented door. The Council determined the appli cation s on the basis of the original proposal. However, it has considered the amended proposal in its appeal evidence . N oting also the nature of the changes and that they d o not fundamentally alter the development still proposed, I am satisfied that no prejudice would be caused by my considering the appeals on the basis of the amen ded plans. I have therefore taken them into account and determined the appeals as I have used this revised description which reflects the amended plans in my formal decisions above. Appeal Decisions APP/H1705/Y/23/3329694 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 Main Issues 6. The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposal on the special interest of the and any of the f eatures of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses ; and (ii ) the effect of the t. Leonard . Reasons 7. Sherfield Court dates to the early 18 th century with 20 th century additions . The principal elevation of the main part of the building has a symmetrical 7 bay arrangement , including a first - floor venetian window over a Tuscan porch to the centre , and is finished in red brick in Flemish bond with floor bands . A ta ll parapet including plastered panels above the first - floor windows and ornamentation at the corners partly conceals a hipped tiled roof . Lower bo w - fronted wings to either side continue the floor bands and symmetry of the elevation . The result is a striking Georgian building , now divided vertically into dwellings, which sits within extensive grounds . These grounds includ e a deep front lawn up to Reading Road, a walled garden , a tree - lined avenue out to a copse of woodland to the nor th east and an island within a moat as well as a variety of ancillary building s. 8. One of t he se ancillary buildings is the appeal building which the main parties describe as a barn dating to around the middle of the 19 th century that historically functioned as an ancillary agricultural building to Sherfield Court . There is a late 19 th century water tower with a weatherboard exterior attached to the north end of the barn , but the barn itself has an elongated linear form with two p orch projections on the south west side and is finished in brick with a slate roof supported on a timber frame . T he form and materials of the building ar e typical of the north Wessex vernacular , although lozenge shaped honeycomb vents in the brick work of the southern part of the building add an interesting architectural detail to an otherwise fairly utilitarian structure. Internally, the building is divided into three main bays , with a brick partition around a small sunken section to the central bay th at includes a chimney stack extend ing up through the roof and which t he parties suggest was used as a boiler room. Other alterations include infilling of the openings in the porches , the installation of windows in the north east elevation and provision of garage doors to historic cart openings . I also saw a roller shutter present to the southern cart opening, although the Council indicates that there is no record of consent having been granted for this feature. 9. Given the above, I find the special interest of Sherfield Court , insofar as it relates to these appeals, to be primarily associated with the historic and architectural value of the building and the legibility of its relationship with its extensive grounds and wider complex of associated structures . As part of this, t he surviving historic fabric and architectural detailing of the appeal building make some contribut ion to special interest . Its form , layout and vernacular appearance further reflect its historic function and use and illustrate alterations over time to reflect chang ing requirements which informs an understanding of its relationship with Sherfield Court and contributes to the legibility of the historic complex. 10. The listing description indicates that the Church of St Leonard dates to the 14 th century, and that it was almost wholly restored during the 19 th century. It includes a prominent tower topped by a spire and a mostly flint wall exterior Appeal Decisions APP/H1705/Y/23/3329694 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 with contrasting stone dressings and sits within a churchyard, most of which extends to the south and west . The Church shares an access from Reading Road with part of Sherfield Court whic h sits very close to its north east corner. The close proximity of the se buildings is apparent given intervisibility between them, although there is little direct visual relationship between the Church and the appeal building. Beyond the development around Sherfield Court are open fields and parcels of woodland which serve to set the Church apart from other nearby development and provide for a decidedly rural backdrop . 11. Given the above, I find the contribution made to the special interest o f the Church by its setting, insofar as it relates to the current proposal, to be primarily associated with its relationship to its spacious rural surroundings which emphasise its historic position and importance . The evidence before me does not assert any direct functional link between Sherfield Court and the C hurch, but I consider the appeal site to make some limited contribution to the special interest of the Church as a feature which complements the rural qualit y of its wider setting . 12. The propos al would form a new entrance with garage door to the central bay of the appeal building. As an additional interruption , this would diminish the historic simplicity of the elevation along the access track which has already been punctuated by openings. There would also be a loss of historic fabric which would diminish the intactness of the appeal building. 13. However, I saw that the part of the building that would be affected is showing spalling to some of the exterior bricks and a section of the internal brick skin is missing. Even noting other openings that have been formed over time, the amount of fabric that would be lost would also be fairly small in the context of the structure as a whole and there would remain significant brickwork sections. materials . In my judgement, the harm caused to the special interest of Sherfield Court through the loss of historic fabric at the appeal bu ilding would therefore be very limited. 14. Furthermore, the design and appearance of the opening would reflect existing . The proportions of the opening would also be consistent with t he northernmost door and would be markedly narrower than the historic cart entrances so as to be subservient to these features. In addition, the spacing between the door and adjacent openings would be similar to that present between other openings currently and the honeycomb brick vent and bell above the proposed door would be retained as distinctive architectural features to this part of the building . I find that t he proposal would therefore be in keeping with the existing building and its generally utilitarian and functional appea rance and I am satisfied that the elevation would not appear unduly cluttered . The additional opening would also be the only change to the layout of the building . In my judgement, it would not significantly affect the understanding of the latent plan form of the building and how this has changed over time so as to undermine its legibility. 15. These factors would temper considerably the effect of the proposal. I find that the opening would be a gen erally sympathetic addition and that while there would be detriment to the overall integrity of the building through the change to its layout and elevation and the loss of historic fabric , this would be very minor and its ancillary quality and appearance would not be harmfully eroded . Appeal Decisions APP/H1705/Y/23/3329694 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 Notwithstanding the effects on the appeal building itself , its relationship to Sherfield Court and to other ancillary buildings within the curtilage of this listed building would not therefore be disrupted . As a co nsequence, t he legibility of the complex would not be adversely affected and I see no reason that any contribution made to the special interest of Sherfield Court by other buildings within its curtilage would be diminished. 16. Given also that the appeal building would retain its overall character and appearance as a utilitarian structure ancillary to Sherfield Court, I consider there would be no meaningful change to the rural quality of the wider setting to the Church of St Leon ard . The proposal would not be clearly seen in visual juxtaposition with the Church and I find that there would not be harm to the special interest of the Church of St Leonard through the development in its wider setting. 17. Nevertheless, th e loss of histori c fabric and the dilution to the historic layout of the appeal building and the simplicity of its elevation through the creation of a new opening would cause some harm to the special interest of Sherfield Court , albeit that I consider the harm would be ver y limited . 18. considering the impact of development on the significance of designated goes on to advise that a ny harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification . 19. Bearing in mind the scale of the proposal and how it would aff ect the listed building of Sherfield Court as a whole , I find that the harm would be less than substantial in the terms of the Framework. Nevertheless , I give considerable importance and weight to this harm . 20. Where a proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimal viable use. 21. The appellant advises th at the door is required to improve access to the central bay of the building to provide storage for equipment related to the maintenance of the estate and garden features . Sherfield Court is set within extensive grounds including the moat , tree - lined avenue and copse. To my mind, the ability to effectively manage and maintain the grounds around Sherfield Court would help to at least sustain the contribution that the setting makes to the special interest of the listed building and would therefore represent a potential heritage benefit . 22. The appeal building is subdivided internally and the only current access to the central bay is a pedestrian door . Given that the south west elevation o f the building and the internal wall to the south of the central bay adjoin land shown to be in separate ownership , there would seem to be little realistic scope to provide access from these directions. It might be technically possible to form an opening in the internal wall to provide access from the northern bay which is within the same ownership, but I saw that this bay is already in use as a garage and the requirement to shunt vehicles to enable access to the central bay would be undesi rable . From the information before me, there would seem Appeal Decisions APP/H1705/Y/23/3329694 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 little practical alternative to the proposal to enable suitable access to the central bay of the building . In my judgement, the rea lisation of the potential heritage benefit deriving from supporting t he effective management and maintenance of the estate would comprise a n important public benefit of the proposal . 23. Although finely balanced, I consider the resulting public benefit would be of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the considerable importance and weight attached to the harm caused to the special interest of Sherfield Court by the proposal . 24. I therefore conclude that the proposal would preserve the s pecial interest of the Church of St Leonard and that while it would fail to preserve the special interest of Sherfield Court, the harm would be outweighed by the public benefit of the proposal . The proposal would therefore accord with the Framework and the expectations of the Act. 25. Subject to conditions securing appropriate materials and detailing, the proposal would also be suitably respectful of the host building and its quality as sought by Policy EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 - 2029 and Policy D1 of the Sherfield on Loddon Neighbourhood Plan 2011 - 2029 insof a r as they seek to preserve or enhance the borough's heritage assets . I find that the Appeal A proposal would comply with the development plan when it is read as a whole. It would also accord with similar broad objectives under Principle s LB02 , LB04 , SHA01 , SHA02 and SHA0 4 of the Heritage Supplementary Planning . G iven that I have found there to be clear and convincing justification for the harm to Sh erfield Court, it would further comply with Principle LB01 of the SPD. Conditions 26. I n addition to standard conditions specifying the time limit, I have imposed a condition in respect of Appeal A specifying the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty . The Council suggested a further condition requiring materials and finishes to match the existing building. However, I saw different finishes to parts of the existing building which could give rise to uncertainty . I have therefore imposed conditions in respect of Appeal B requiring further plans and details of the materials and works of making - good which I consider are necessary for clarity and in the interest of preserving the special interest of the listed buildin g and t he appellant has provided written agreement to these conditions . Because the proposal would need to be implemented complying with the conditions on Appeal B, it would not be necessary in this case to impose duplicate conditions on Appeal A. Conclus ion 27. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal s should be allowed . J Bowyer INSPECTOR
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3337187 (Reigate and Banstead Borough Council) — 2024-05-01
📍 Reigate and Banstead Borough Council LPA code: E07000211 PINS reference: 3337187 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - i nspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2024 by Lynne Evans BA MA MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/ L3625/D/24/3337187 Nutley Dean Farm, Small s Hill Road, Horley RH6 0HR The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Julie Baker against the decision of Reigate & Banstead Borough Council. The application Ref : 23/00429/HHOLD dated 28 February 2023 , was refused by notice dated 20 December 2023 . The development proposed is introduction of 3 No. Heritage style Velux windows into the existing roof slope on Plot 7 dwelling on the site. 2 No. to sit a bove the existing gallery space and 1 No. to sit above the existing bedroom to offer better natural ventilation to the spaces. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the introduction of 3 No. Heritage style Velux windows into the existing roof slope on Plot 7 dwelling on the site ; 2 No. to sit above the existing gallery space and 1 No. to sit above the existing bedroom to offer better natural ventilation to the spaces at 7 Nutley Dean Farm, Smalls Hill Road, Horley RH6 0HR in accordance with the terms of the application, 23/00429/HHOLD dated 28 February 2023 , subject to the following condition s: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) T he development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: NUTL1 - CBLS - 00 00 DR A 0077 S2 P 0 1 ; NUTL1 - CBLS - 00 - ZZ - DR - A - 3010 A1 P 0 1; NUTL1 - CBLS - 00 - ZZ - DR - A - 3605 S4 P 0 1. Preliminary Matters 2. The appeal site falls withi n the Green Belt. Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) sets out that the construction of new buildings in the green belt is inappropriate except for a limited number of exceptions including the extension or alteration of a bu ilding providing that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Appeal Decision APP/L3625/D/24/3337187 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 3. The Council has referred to Policy NHE5 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019 (DM Plan) which sets out a criter ia based approach to development within the Green Belt, including at criterion d that the extensions would not be disproportionate to the original building taking into account of a range of factors, including any additional floor area, massing and bulk, he ight and visual prominence. 4. The proposal would add roof lights to the existing roof slope and would not therefore add floorspace or bulk, height or massing to the existing building nor increase visual prominence. There would also be no impact on openness which is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt. From my site visit and all the information before me I am satisfied that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that there would be no conflict with the Fra mework or Policy NHE5 of the DM Plan in this regard . 5. The Council has also satisfied itself that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and this was not raised as a reason for refusal. Main Issue 6. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the local area and the setting of the locally listed building . Reasons 7. The appeal property is part of a recent residential courtyard development of some 14 dwell ings accessed via a private road and bridleway off Smalls Hill Road within the countryside and within the Green Belt. The proposal relates to the addition of three velux windows to the rear roof slope in addition to the one existing velux window which is a lready in place on that same roof slope. 8. The rear roof slope as existing is seen from the private drive and bridleway and the three additional roof lights would also be visible. However, and contrary to hat there are a number of roof lights as well as photovoltaic panels on the roof slopes across the courtyard development, including the one roof light already in place at the appeal property in the rear roof slope. The three additional roof lights would be sited to line up with the existing roof light and this would follow a similar pattern to that seen on some of the other buildings. I therefore consider that the proposed roof lights would respect the character and appearance of the existing dwelling as we ll as the wider courtyard development and its countryside setting. 9. The Council has specifically referenced its Barn and Farm Conversion SPD (SPD) which advises against the use of roof lights; however , this SPD seems to be primarily directed to the convers ion of existing farmyard barns, although also extending to new development in farmyard settings. Whilst I do not have the full planning history in front of me, and the Council has referred to the whole site being a former farm site, the information provide d on the planning history indicates that there were previously industrial buildings on the site rather than farmyard barns. Furthermore, I have found that the roof lights are found within the existing development and the proposal would respect the characte r and appearance of the existing dwelling and of the local area. Appeal Decision APP/L3625/D/24/3337187 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 10. The Council has also referred to the courtyard development being within the grounds of a locally listed building, Nutley Dean Farmhouse , although no further information has been provided in t his regard . I am satisfied that given the modest nature of the proposal relating to one of the dwellings in the courtyard complex and the distance to the locally listed building there would be no harm to the setting of that building. 11. I am therefore satisfi ed that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of the existing building and of the local area, including the setting of the locally listed building. There would be no conflict with policies NHE9 and DES1 of the DM Plan as well as the Frame work and in particular Sections 12 and 16 all of which seek for new development to be of a high standard of design which respects the local context and the setting of heritage assets. 12. The proposal would not comply with the detailed guidance in the SPD in respect of roof lights . However, I have found that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of both the existing house and the local area. In the particular circumstances of this case, and for the reasons set out above, I consider that ther e would be justification for an exception to be made to these parts of the SPD. Other Considerations 13. the number of roof lights , but my decision is based solely on the planning merits of the proposal. Conditions 14. In terms of conditions, as well as the standard time limit condition, materials should match the existing to respect the character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area, and the approved plans should be listed for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of good planning. Conclusion 15. For the reason s given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that this appeal should be allowed. L J Evans INSPECTOR⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
11. I am therefore satisfi ed that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of the existing building and of the local area, including the setting of the locally listed building. There would be no conflict with policies NHE9 and DES1 of the DM Plan as well as the Frame work and in particular Sections 12 and 16 all of which seek for new development to be of a high standard of design which respects the local context and the setting of heritage assets. 12. The proposal would not comply with the detailed guidance in the SPD in respect of roof lights . However, I have found that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of both the existing house and the local area. In the particular circumstances of this case, and for the reasons set out above, I consider that ther e would be justification for an exception to be made to these parts of the SPD. Other Considerations 13. the number of roof lights , but my decision is based solely on the planning merits of the proposal. Conditions 14. In terms of Conclusion 15. For the reason s given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that this appeal should be allowed. L J Evans
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3335717 (Folkestone and Hythe District Council) — 2024-05-01
📍 Folkestone and Hythe District Council LPA code: E07000112 PINS reference: 3335717 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 6 April 20 2 4 by Elizabeth Lawrence BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01.05.2024 Appeal Ref: APP/ L2250/ D / 2 3 /3 3 357 17 La Toppa, She a r Way, Burmarsh, Romney Marsh, TN29 0JJ The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr s Doreen Carmichael against the decision of Folkestone & Hythe District Council . The application Ref 2 3 / 1519 /FH , dated 2 7 September 2023 , was refused by notice dated 6 December 20 2 3 . The development proposed is for the erection of a one bedroom attached annexe . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning p ermission is granted for a one bedroom attached annexe at La Toppa, She a r Way, Burmarsh, Romney Marsh, TN29 0JJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/1617/FH, dated 23/1519/FH, dated 27 September 2023 and the plans submitted with it, subj ect to the conditions set out below. 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following drawings and documents: Bur - 23062 /P 1of 4 Existing & Proposed Plans, Elevations & Location Plan (Received: 27/09/2023), BUR/23062/P 2 of 4 Existing Block Plan (Received: 27/09/2023), BUR/2302/P 3 of 4 Proposed Block Plan (Received: 27/09/2023), BUR/23062/P 4 of 4 Location Plan (Received: 27/09/2023); and Design and Access Statement (Received: 27/09/2023). 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby perm itted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 4) The floor level of the extension hereby permitted shall not be lower than that of the existing dwelling. Pr eliminary matters 2. Since the appeal application was refused the National Planning Policy Fr amework 2021 has been replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework December 2023 (Framework). Whilst the new Framework has introduced a number of changes, they are not material to my consideration of the appeal Appeal Decision APP/ L 2250 / D / 2 3 /3 3 357 17 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 proposal. For the avoidance of any do ubt, I confirm that in this decision I have referred to the new Framework. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. R easons 4. T he Appeal site is situated within the countryside, just to the north of the main built up area of the small settlement of Burmarsh. The appeal site is located adjacent to All Saints Church, which is Grade II* listed and a short distance from The Shepherd & Crook Inn (Inn) , which is grade II listed. Their significance is derived f r o m a combination of their history, public use and architecture. Directly opposite the appeal site are a detached house and a couple of modest sized farm buildings and to north and west the appeal site borders onto the open countryside. 5. The appeal dwelling is centrally located within a large plot which is laid out with areas of formal and informal landscaping and includes numerous trees and a large pond to the rear. The garden is enclosed by mature hedges. The appeal dwelling has a strong sense of uniformity due to its combined width, proportions and detailing. This includes fully hipped roofs , centrally placed dormer windows a nd a shallow front projection that is similar in width to the double garage o n the opposite side of the dwelling. There is a wrap - around single storey extension with a glazed roof along part o f the southern side and rear elevation of the original dwelling. Due to its set back from the front elevation and glazed roof it is seen as visually distinct from the original dwelling. 6. Together and amongst other things polic y HB1 of the Folkstone & Hyt he District Council Places and Policies Local Plan 2020 (PPLP), require proposals to make a positive contribution to their location and surroundings. PPLP Policy HB8 states that ext e n s ions should reflect the scale, proportions, materials, roof line and de tailing of the original building. To maintain the visual quality of the street scene extensions should be subordinate to the building. They should not exceed half the width of the host dwelling or half the depth of the garden. They should also maintain the open character of plots where this is a feature of the street scene. 7. Paragraph 135 of t he Framework has similar objectives. Paragraphs 205, 206 & 208 of the Framework state that when considering the impact of a development on the significance of a designated heritage asset great weight should be given to its conservation. Any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset from development within its setting requires clear and convincing justification. Where a proposal would lead to less t han substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 8. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that when assessing proposals for new dev elopment which affects the setting of a listed building, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving its setting. Appeal Decision APP/ L 2250 / D / 2 3 /3 3 357 17 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 9. PPLP Policy HB 9 allows for annexes in the countryside where they are required to provide care. Attached annexes should be capable of being incorporated into the main house when the need for the annexe ceases. Where attached annexes cannot be attached detached annexes wi ll be permitted, where amongst other things they would be sympathetic and modest in scale to the host dwelling and would have a clear dependency on it. 10. The proposed annexe would be in line with the recessed front building line of the host dwelling and woul d include a hall way that would be linked to the host dwelling . This link would screen the existing wrap - around extension located to the side and rear of the dwelling . As with the original dwelling the proposed roof of the annexe would be fully hipped . It would also be materially lower which would help ensure that the annexe would be visually subservient to the host dwelling. The slightly shallower pitch of the annexe roof would be largely unnoticeable due to linear form the lower hal lway link. It w ould also respect the roof pitch of the existing wrap around extension and the pitched roof outbuilding on the opposite side of the host dwelling. 11. Whilst the width of the annexe would slightly exceed half the width of the original house, along with the p roposed fenestration and external materials it would respect the overall form and appearance of the host dwelling. Accordingly, the modest conflict with PPLP Policy HB1 regarding the width of the annexe would not in itself weigh against the propos al. Due to the proximity and juxtaposition of the proposed annexe, the original dwelling and the existing wrap around extension , the proposed annex e would relate appropriately to the host dwelling. Also, h aving regard to the size and in particular the width of t he plot the resultant dwelling would appear spaciously sited and proportionate to the site. 12. Regarding the need for the proposed annexe, the personal circumstances set out in the appellants appeal statement clearly support the provision of the proposed annexe. Physically and in terms of use the proposed annexe would share the same access and parking area which are located on the opposite side of the dwelling. It would also share the same garden area and there would be direct inter - looking between the p roposed kitchen/living area and the wrap around extension. As a result, there would be a shared dependency between the host dwelling and the annexe. Should the stated need for the annexe cease, having regard to the size, layout and siting of the propose d annexe, it would lend itself to a variety of uses associated with the host dwelling. 13. The proposed annexe and the Inn would be effectively screened from each other by the existing annexe to the side of the Inn and the boundary hedge and trees between t he buildings. 14. The upper part of the rear elevation of All Saints Church is visible over the front boundary hedge of the appeal site. Such views are filtered by the intervening trees and the boundary hedge to the rear of the church. The proposed extensi on would be visible in these views, where it would be seen as part of the host dwelling and would be separated from the church grounds by a treed side garden area. For these reasons, the setting of the above listed buildings would be preserved and the pro posal would not detract from their significance. 15. Finally, the council has suggested the imposition of conditions relating to the use of matching external materials and adherence to the submitted drawings. Appeal Decision APP/ L 2250 / D / 2 3 /3 3 357 17 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 These conditions are necessary to ensure the extension respects the character and appearance of the host dwe lling and for the avoidance of doubt. 16. T h e officer report states that as the site falls within flood zones 2 & 3, the finished floor levels should be no lower than that of the host dwelling. Whilst the submitted drawings appear to show that this is the c ase in the interests of certainty it is a matter that would need to be secured by condition. Finally, I note that the council has suggested an informative relating to the occupancy of the annexe. Informatives are not included in appeal decision s and as p lanning permission would be required for the use of the annexe as a separate dwelling, a planning condition relating to the use of the annexe is not necessary. 17. For these reasons I conclude that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of th e street scene and would comply with PPLP Polic ies HB1 , HB8 and HB9 and paragraphs 135, 205, 206 & 208 of the Framework. Elizabeth Lawrence INSPECTOR
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3328322 (Somerset Council) — 2024-03-18
📍 Somerset Council PINS reference: 3328322 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - i nspectorate Appeal Decision Inquiry Held on 23 - 25 January 2024 Site visit made on 2 5 January 2024 by Stephen Wilkinson BA BPl DIP LA MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 18/03/20 24 Appeal Ref: APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 Land north of Mudford Road, Yeovil, Somerset Grid Ref: 356250, 118369 The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission. The appeal is made by Yeovil LVA LLP (Land Value Alliance) against Somerset Council. The application Ref : 22/00695/OUT , is dated 15 Ma rch 2022. The development proposed is erection of up to 252 dwellings, public open space (including community orchard and village green ) , woodland planting, ecological buffers, sustainable drainage systems, a biodiverse wetland habitat and other ancillary works . All matters reserved except fo r access. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for the erection of up to 252 dwellings, public open space (including community orchard and village green), woodland planting, ecological buffers, sustainable drainage s ystems, a biodiverse wetland habitat and other ancillary works. All matters reserved except for access subject to the conditions included in the schedule to this dec i sion . Procedural Matters 2. Since the application was submitted South Somerset Council was merged with three surrounding distri c ts to form Somerset Council, a U n i ta ry Authority which commenced operation on 1 st April 2023. Th is decision is based on the policies of the South Somerset Local Plan 2 006 - 28 adopted 2015. 3. The scheme is submitted in ou tline with all matters reserved apart from access. A parameter plan ( 190812 L 02 Rev B ) was submitted with the appeal. I have treat ed this as illustrative only. 4. Given the size of the proposed development the appeal was accompanied by an Environmental Statement as required by Regulation 5(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. 5. Between the time that the Council resolved to oppose the scheme and the start of the appeal process a revised access strategy (23037/PHL/01 Rev E) was agree d between the parties. The changes between the previous strategy considered by the Council and th at before me were present ed at the Inquiry. Given the small - scale nature of the suggested changes , I am sat i sfied that no Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 parties have been prejudiced by this late revision and accordingly my decision is made on this . 6. Following publication of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) on 20 December 2023 I wrote to the main parties for comment. Co mments received have been incorporated int o this decision. 7. The appeal was accompanied by a draft S106 Agr eement. A completed Agreem en t dated 15 February was received following the closure of the Inquiry ; this is referred to later. 8. Finally, t here are a numb er of designated heritage assets surrounding the boundaries of the appeal site. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a statutory duty on decision makers, to have special regard to the desirability of prese rving listed buildings or their setting. Accordingly, I have assessed the impact of the appeal scheme on these buildings and structures later in this decision. Main Issue 9. The Council originally suggested three putative reasons for refusal of the applicat ion which included insufficient information on archaeology of the site , insufficient detail in re s p e ct of the infrast r u c ture required to support the application and the effects of the scheme on the landscape character and appearance of the area . 10. The Council agreed, in advance of the Inquiry that archaeology could be addressed by suggested conditions and that infrastru c ture by a completed S 1 06 Agreement . 11. Accordingly, the outstanding main issue is : The effect of the proposed scheme on the landscape character and appearance of the area . Reasons Landscape character and appearance Landscape effects 12. The appeal site lies on the northern edge of Yeovil and extend s north of Mudford Road towards S ock Lane . Ribbon development on both side s of Mudford Road mark the top of an escarpment above the site . T he site compris es three fields of around 25 ha surrounded by far mland . Yeovil Without sewerage treatment works lies by the northwestern corner of the site . 13. The appeal site does not lie in a v alued landscape as defined by Paragraph 1 80 a) of the Framework. The Coun cil recognise that it has value related to its undulating and undeveloped nature which allows views north from Mudford Road . In contrast the appellant, through the application of adopted guidance 1 identify that the site has a medium value . 14. T he value of the site is derived from its openness with its natural heritage derived from the location of the goyle (a local term for a steep sided wooded valley ) along part of its western edge and a small group of protected trees 1 Landscape Technical Note 02/21 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 towards the southern edge of the site . The absence of footpaths through the site result in a low recreational value and it is not covered by any nature conservation objectives nor does it have any cul t u ral associations . Whilst the northern edge is relatively tranquil t raffic noise and the presence of dwellings along Mudford Road and Stone Lane are experienced across the southern and central parts of the site . For these reasons , I find that the site has a medium value. 15. The site lies in NCA 140 2 , Yeovil Scarplands , characterised as a predomina n t l y rural area which comprises ridges and steep scar p s separating clay vales . These feat u res are identified in the LCA 2 3 Northern Esca r pment Foothills included in the Yeovil Peripheral Landscape S tudy 4 (YPLS) . 16. Whils t the YPLS does not strictly follow the GLVIA 3 5 guidance it is an important material consideration given its assessment of landscape capacity to sustain development. This identifi es the site as lying within LCA2a , an area of high sensitivity to change due to its rural character . However, the study recognises that within LCA2a , in areas where field boundaries and hedgerow trees have been removed as in the appeal site , there is a m edium sensitivity to change . This was agreed by the Council despite their written evidence to the contrary 6 . 17. T he escarpment which in part follows the edge of Mudford Road is not consistent in form with varying levels of steepness and orientation. The site includ es a moderate s lope from around 82metres AoD by Mudford Road to 45met res AoD at its northern edge ; a distance of around 830metres . T his contrasts with the steepness of the slope on the site lying immediately to the west . T he app eal s ite faces outwards towards the open rural character of the Yeo Valley . 18. The parameter plan submitted with t he appeal identifies 252 dwellings located across the site , with a village green on its southern edge by Mudford Road with its northern part used for recreation including for a LEAP 7 , MUGA 8 and orchard with a cascading water feature which would act a s a SUDS 9 . The appeal scheme would involve the removal of a rou nd 180metres of hedgerow from across the site. 19. The appeal scheme would require the creation of development platforms requiring areas of cut and fill. Whilst around 40 % of the appeal site would be occupied by built development would include the MUGA , LEAP and SUDS . The se features would, however , be clearly manmade structures resulting in landscape changes which would be permanent and irreversible . 20. D espite the scale of change resulting from the appeal scheme , the proposed areas of housing would be located away from the steepest slopes lying on the western side of the site where the land falls away to the goyle . Existing w oodland would be extended along the western edge and the proposed areas 2 National Character Area 3 Local Character Area 4 CD3.4a 2008 5 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment , Landscape Institute and Inst it ute for OF Environmental Management and Assessment 6 Mr Potterton XX 7 Local Equipped Area of Play 8 Multi U s e Games Area 9 Sustainable Drainage System Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 o f housing would be parti al ly contained by existing hedgerows, a majority which would be retained and which would be enhanced as part of the mitigation strategy. The net t effect of these changes is that despite its scale the scheme would result in only moderate adverse impacts on the site . 21. Further m ore , given th e comparative size of the appeal site with the NCA in which it lies, there would be n egligible impacts on it and only limited adverse impacts on the Yeo Valley to the north . There would, h owe ver, be moderate adverse impacts on the land to its east and west given the high landscape sensitivity of these two areas . T his could partially be addressed through the proposed mitigation. Visual effects 22. The main parties agreed a set of viewpoints and visual receptors from around the site which were shared on the site visit. The Zone of Theoretical visibility (ZTV) extends to a maximum distance of around 4km to the north of the site but in other directio ns is drawn tightly . This reflects t he natural changes in topography across the area which are important in exposing the receptor to a range of different views of the site. 23. The proposed development as suggested by the parameter plan would include 252 dwe llings located across the site as either houses or apartment b uildings of between 2 - 2.5 storey height (8.5 - 10metres ri d ge height ). The assessment of the vis ual impacts of the scheme was anticipated at a period of fifteen years after completion of the schem e when the proposed landscape mitigation would have started to have greater effect. 24. The parties differ on the significance of effects f or t he occupie r s of those residential properties on Mudford Road which directly face the site . T h e Council identify major adverse effects whereas the appellant consider the se would b e moderate adverse . Given th e fall in levels within the site away from Mudford Road and the suggested mitigation included in the parameter plan in the form of the and additional planting the visual effects would be moderate to major adverse. 25. T he existing hedge along the edge of the footway on Mudford Road varies in height. T he appeal schem e would result in minor adverse effects for pedestrians along that part of the footway close to the junction with Lyde Road . 26. From the residential properties along Mudford Road , the appeal scheme would still allow an appreciation of the wider landscape acro ss the Yeo Valley . This contrasts with the visual impact of frontage development of seven dwellings at Combe Street Lane, Yeovil 10 which was dismissed on appeal because it would have prevent ed an appreciation of the openness of the countryside beyond. In contrast , d espite the marked difference in size between that scheme , the appeal scheme would not prevent appreciat i on of the landscape to the north from the Mudford Road properties . 27. T he site was not viewed from the rear of the residential properties along Stone Lane . The occupiers of these properties, as sensitive receptors , would experience moderate adver se effects . The effects of the scheme are mode rated by the intervening fields and the 10 APP/R3325/W/20/3256703 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 proposed mitigation involving an extension of existing woodland on the east side of the goyle . 28. Given that both Stone Lane and Sock Lane form part of the Monarch s Way , a designated footpath from Worcester via Bristol and Yeovil to Shoreham , I accord walkers a high level of sensitivity. However , in many instances along both these l ane s , views of the site are limited due to either local topography or the height of hedgerows which lie along the route . Th e selected viewpoints over gates and openings represent an exception to the prevailin g kinetic experience of the footpath user . 29. For example, V Pt5 is a gap in the line of houses a t the southern part of Stone Lane. Whilst the southern part of the site c an be viewed this would be only a Sign i ficantly the housing on Mudford Road would in part frame the views of the site at this point and reduce the impact of the appeal scheme . 30. This is a similar relationship to that of the proposed housing scheme at Tintinhull 11 where the existing housing along Thorne Lane on the scarp edge was identified as bei n g dominant. Similarly , t he existing properties on Mudford Road would have the same physic al relationship to the housing proposed for the appeal site. Accordingly, t he effects would be low adverse. 31. In contrast to VPt5 , views from VPt6 located at the end of housing on Stone Lane allow clear views over the central part of the site. Despite the e xtent of views from this VPt the effects would be moderate advers e for walkers given the distance from the lane to the site . 32. V Pt 7 by the access to Stone Farm allows views of the site. However, these are more limited than at VPt6 given that the group of properties surrounding Stone Farm partially block views. For this reason, there would be low adverse effects. 33. VPt8 lies around 150 metres further north with views directly to wards the site. However due to the distance involved , the effects for walkers would be minor adverse. In contrast VPt9 is located be yond the northern edge of the site on S ock Lane by the entrance to the sewerage treatment works, but due to the local topography , the site would not be readily visible resulting in low adverse t o negligible effects. 34. VPt10 located towards the northern end of the ZTV affords a broader view to the site s southern edge. However , t he bulk of the appeal scheme would be hidden by the fol d s in the topography resulting in low adverse - negligible effects . V P t11 located on Ashington Lane would allow views north towards the appeal site which would appear as part of a distan t panorama from where there would be broken views of the proposed housing . The effects would be low adverse. 35. VPt 12 by Sock Cottages looks directly south towards the site enabling views of a large part of the appeal scheme. Its orientation limits the impacts of exi s ting development along Mudford Road on the appeal scheme. This result s in moderate adverse effects for the walker . 36. VPt13 l i es on Sock Hill . F r om this point parts of the site can be seen but framed by the existing properties along Mudford Road which due to their height 11 CD6.6 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 would still be the dominant element in the landscape at this point . This contrasts with the Frome appeal decision where there was no existing development. T he significance of effects from this point would be low adverse. 37. VPt14 lies at the southern end of Sock Lane from where parts of the schem e would be visible. However due to the intervening distance the effects would be low adverse. VPt15 located to the east of the ZTV on Drovers Way which also , allows clear views of the northern and central sections of the proposed scheme . Despite the intervening distance between this viewpoint and the si te , the appeal scheme would be clear ly visible on the approach to Yeovil resulting in moderate adverse effects . 38. From VPts 1 6 and 17 located on the southern edge of Mudford Lane there would be clear views of the northern secti o n of the appeal scheme for drivers and their passengers travelling west wards . The effects from here would be low adverse given the ir kinetic experience , the intervening distance and existing trees . 39. The site at Marston Lane, Frome 12 can be distinguished from the scheme before m e as that site included a more intimate f ield pattern . T here would have been a sig nif i ca nt loss of hedgerows and the proposed housing would have compromise d the ridgeline conflicting with specific policies aimed to prevent skyline development. The appeal scheme before me is significantly different with a different policy context informed to some extent by the outline scheme included in the allocated site at Y V2 13 to the east of the site. Although located in a different Landscape Character Area it presents a new context for assertion that the appeal scheme would represent an isolated f inger of development extending down the escarpment. 40. In summary , I find that the greatest impacts would be experienced by occupiers of those residential properties directly facing the site with lesser effects being experienced by footway users on Mudford R oad. The effects would be limited for walkers Way due to the undulating topography and tall hedgerows which restrict views. In several instances the existing properties along Mudford Road and Stone Lane provide which furt her reduces the impacts of the appeal scheme . Conclusions on Landscape Character and Appearance 41. The Council in its putative reason for refusal identifies a specific conflict with Policies SD1 and EQ2. 42. W hil s t Policy SD1 re - iterates t he statutory basis of planning decisions and the presumption in favour of sustain a ble development P olicy EQ2 requires that local distinc t iveness is to be respected with regard to local context and that landscape character should be preserved and e nhanced. 43. The form of development suggested by the parameter plans would adversely impact on the undeveloped character of the site . These matters could not be fully mitigated . There would be adverse visual effects for the occupiers of residential properties directly overlooking the site but only limited adverse visual impacts for walkers along Monarch Way. 12 APP/Q3305/W/22/3306827 13 ID 3 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 44. For these reasons, I conclude that overall, the appeal scheme would have moderate adverse lands cape effects with limited visual effects but would conflict with Policy EQ2 . Other Matters Somerset Moor and Levels Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar 45. Under Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) as co mpetent authority I am required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment of the development on the basis of its Likely Significant Effects on the Somerset Moors and Ramsar /SPA . 46. The Ramsar /SPA is suffering from excess concentrations of phosphates leading to eutrophication which in turn suppresses the ability of invertebrates and plant life to grow . Natural England require that development with i n the catchment of the Ramsar /SPA which will be served by a wastewater system must demonstrate nutrient n eutrality in line with its published guidance 14 . In response to these concerns the appeal sche me includes a treatment wetland designed as six basins acting as cascading wetlands referred to above which would be located at the northwest edge of the site. 47. This is designed to take the flo w from a small tributary of Oakley Brook which runs along the northwestern edge of the site which w ould be treated by the scheme s SUDS through natural processes including sedimentation and absorption from aquatic plants and then returned to the watercourse. In tu rn this would flow into the Ramsar/SPA as a nutrient free water. Even with the application o of eighty percent , the sche me would produce sufficient mitigation of 24.04kg/pa to offset the 16.69 kg /pa of phosphates per annum anticipated as likely to be generated by the scheme. T here would be an excess of what is required as mitigation of 7.35kg/pa produced by the proposed SUDS scheme. 48. T he proposed measures would mitigate the appeal scheme, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, so that there would be no adverse effect upon the integrity of the Ramsar/SPA. The schem e was developed in collaboration with N atural Engla nd who have confirmed that they are sati s f i ed with the proposed form of mitigation. 49. T he mitigation would be secured and managed by covenants included in the S 106 Agreement. These are consistent with Policy EQ4. 50. I am satisfied that each of these covenants fall within the provisions of Regulation 122 (2) of the CIL Regulations and Paragraph 57 of the Framework. Listed buildings and structures 51. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a statutory duty on decision makers, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting. The Framework 52. ge Assets, Planning Note 3) advises that the setting itself is not a heritage asset. Its importance lies in 14 CD8.1 Nutrient Neutrality Advice 16 March 2022 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset or the ability to appreciate that significance. 53. The re are several listed buildings and a stretch of highway ide n tified by the Turnpike Trusts and a listed milestone located beyond the boundaries of the appeal site. 54. Stone Farm dates from the nineteenth century and is part of a group of historic farm buildings located around 250metres to the west of the appeal site . It has a predominantly rural setting derived from the fields which exten d from the farmhouse to the western side of the goyle and the appeal s ite which lies beyond the goyle . This rural setting is limited in extent by the neighbouring housing on Mudford Road and Stone Lane . 55. The appeal scheme would result in the loss of part of the buil d ing s historic ru r al setting although h arm to its setting would be in part mitigated by the existing tree belt which forms the southern part of the goyle and which it is proposed w ould be enhanced . In terms of the Framework the harm arising would be at the lower end of less than substantial . 56. Sock Hill Cottages , located on Sock Lane are Grade II listed and date from the mid nineteenth century. The y lie in a rel a tively isolated location around 150metres from the appeal site . T he intervening topography mean s that intervisibility between the appeal site and the cottages is limited . Accor dingly, the appeal schem e would not undermine the significan ce of these cottages. 57. Several Grade II listed cottages lie to the north of the appeal site. Given a combination of distance, orientation and t he lack of functional connection t o the appeal site there would be no harm to their setting s ari si ng from the appeal scheme . 58. There is a section of Mudford Road/Mudf o rd Lane extending to the east which under the Yeovil Trust in 1753. The appeal scheme would partially develop its rural setting. However , the effect of these changes would be limited in scale and the degree of harm would be at the lower end of less than substantial. 59. A listed milestone lying due east of the appeal site, dat es from the time parts of Mud ford Road and Mudford Lane were a designated Turnpike. This compris es a h stone pillar with shaped iron plaque with a height of around 0.75 metres . Its significance is its vernacular form and historic siting in providing a way - marking function . Given that the route it relates to would be unaltered, and that the proposed development would not obstruct the functional use of the milestone or alter its rural setting the sche me would not be harmful to this designated heritage asset. 60. The site lies aro und 20km from Glastonbury Tor which is just discernible from within the site on a clear day. Given the distance involved and the size of the appeal site the appeal scheme would not impact on the setting of this historic structure. 61. I am satisfied that these buildings and structure s do not have any direct historical relationship with the appeal site but th at harm would aris e to the setting of Stone Farm an d the section of Mudford Lane which had been turnpiked but this would be at the lower end of the scale . The extent of harm requires further consideration against the public benefits arising from appeal Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 scheme as part of the heritage balance required by Para graph 208 of the Framework . This is considered later in this decision. Infrastructure 62. Interested parties expressed concern over the impact of the proposed scheme on social infrastructure including schools and health facilities. The Communit y Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 and paragraph 57 of the Framework set a number of tests for planning obligations: they must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, be directly related to the development, and be fairl y and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. 63. The completed S106 requires that 35% of the dwellings proposed are secured as affordable housing units local housing needs ; this includes prov ision for First Homes. This provision complies with Policy H3. 64. Other covenants in favour of the Council include the designation of public open space included in the LEAP and MUGA with trigger points for their imple men tation relating to the occupation of h ousing within the scheme. These provisions comply with Policy HW1. 65. The proposed highways works included i n the A ccess S trategy (23037/PHL/01 Rev E) include the provision of controlled and uncontrolled crossing points on Mudford Road and Lyde Road with ext ension s of the footwa ys . These provisions broadly adhere to Policies TA3, TA4 and TA5 which require new development to enable sustainable travel options. 66. The S106 Agreement includes covenants in favour of the Heath Authority of ?428 per dwelling required to increase the capacity of local surgeries. The figures used by the Health Authority are included in formula and I am satisfied provide a rational for the suggested funding package included in the S106 Agreement. This accords with Policy SS6. 67. Other covena nts in favour of the Council include financial contributions of ?721.18 per dwelling towards an off site changing room and ?394.52 per dwelling towards off site playing pitches. Covenants require commuted sums towards maintenance costs of changing rooms (? 239.47 and ?58.02 per dwelling towards playing pitches and changing rooms respectively). A further ?61.62 is to be allocated towards youth facilities. These requirements reflect the anticipated number of children likely to be future residents of the appea l scheme and are supported by Policy HW1. 68. Educational covenants in favour of the Council include a contribution to support the likely single child with special education needs of ?101, 216. This would accord with Policy SS6 of the Local Plan. Other covenants in favour of the Council relate to a series of obligations designed to support sustainable travel options. These include a payment of ?3,000 for a t ravel plan fee for monitoring purposes and ?63,000 for safeguarding measures in line with its SPG 15 . These measures are consistent with Policy TA5. 15 Supplementary Planning Guidance Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 69. Other non - financial measures include the implementation of a SUDS in accordance with an agreed specification and maintenance scheme. This would be in line with a Policy EQ1. 70. The S106 Agreement includes a series of obligation regarding measures to mitigate for the harmful effects of phosphates generated by residential development on the Somerset Moors and Levels Ramsar and SPA arising from the appeal scheme. I address this matter in detail in the following section and I am satisfied that these measures are supported by EQ4 of the Local Plan. 71. The S106 includes the provision of infrastructure, which is necess ary , directly required and fairly and reasonably related in scale to this development . I am satisfied that each of these covenants fall within the provisions of Regulation 122 (2) of the CIL Regulations and Paragraph 57 of the Framework. Planning balance T he Development Plan 72. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 73. B oth main parties acknowledge that there is an undersupply of housing land. In these circumstances there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development as defined by the Framework. The test included in Paragraph 11d)ii. of the Framework applies to this case and requires that any adverse i mpacts of the appeal scheme would have to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. 74. T he fact that policies are deemed as out of date does not mean that they carry no weight. To carry weight policies must be consistent with the Framework, as e xplained in Paragraph 2 25 , which amongst other things, states that the closer that local policies are to those in the Framework, the greater weight that may be given to them. As such it is perfectly possible for policies which are deemed out of date by rea son of an inadequate land supply to still carry significant weight. 75. The single putative reason for refusal that remains between the parties identifies conflict with P olicies SS1, SS5, SD 1, YV 1, YV2 and EQ2. I regard these as the most important policies for the determination of this appeal. 76. These p olicies are inter - related , with Policy SD1 broadly neutral in scope as it reit erates S38 (6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 in how planning decisions sh ould be taken. Policy SS1 direct s housing de v elopment towards Yeovil as the main settlement. Policy S S5 a mplifies Policy SS1 by directing housing to within the urban framework of the town an d towards two Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUE s ) . Policy YV1 amplifies th ese policies directing 5 , 876 dwellings to within urban framework and 1 , 565 dwellings towards the SUEs . 77. In directing development to Yeovil or its planned extensions these policies are co nsistent with the policies of the Framework which support sustainable development . Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 78. Polic y EQ2 sets out a range of cr iteria against which development proposal s will be considered which is consistent with Paragraph 180b) of the Framework which recognises the intrinsic value of the countryside . Policy YV2 s ets out requirements for each of the SUEs but outside the SUE is not relevant to the issues raised by this appeal. 79. The appeal scheme conflicts Policies SS1 , SS5, YV1 and EQ2 being located outside Yeovil located within a SUE . The scheme results in adverse landscape and visual effects . 80. Accordingly , g iven the degree of consisten cy which I find between these policies and the Framework I accord considerable weight to the conflict be tween the appeal scheme and the pol i cies of the development plan when considered overall . Material Considerations 81. Set against th is conflict are a range of important material considerations including the pol i cies of the Framework which weigh in favour of the appeal scheme . Housing 82. Of s tent failure over the last eight years 16 to maintain a 5 year housing land supply which according to the Council is currently at around three years 17 alt hough the appellant identify that it is actually just below this figure at 2.9 years. T his i s a significant and chronic shortfall , even acknowledged as such by the Council 18 . 83. The appellant 19 supplied evidence, uncontested by the Council , that housing supply has undermined the delivery of affordable housing . Since 2006 this has averaged at around 167 affordable dwelling per annu m (ADPA) well short of the anticipated target of 227 ADPA. The app ellant cites this shortfall as leading to a serious homelessness prob lem in Yeovil 20 . This was not contested by the Council. 84. The inclusion within the appeal scheme of 164 market and 88 affordable homes would partially address these matters in line with th e policies of the Framework and are theref o re accorded significant weight. Local Economy 85. The appeal scheme would have particular economic benefits derived from construction estimated at between 605 - 781 jobs . 21 . This figure was not contested by the Council. 86. Other economic benefits could be derived from the spending power of the new residents living in the appeal scheme. These would be significant because despite its location beyond the urban framework of Yeovil , the site lies within 16 SoCG Housing Land Supply 17 M s Tadman presented oral evidence to the Inquiry that f ollowing publication of the Framework in December buffer reduced supply to between 2.98 - 3. 1 comp a red to 3.29 years supply 18 Ms Tadman in Chief 19 Mr Kendrick PoE 20 Mr Kendrick PoE 21 Mr Kendrick PoE Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 walking distance of local shops and bus services affording access to the centre 22 . 87. F o r the s e reasons I accept that the appeal scheme w ould benefit the local economy in line with P aragraph 8 5 of the Framework which I accord significant weight. Location 88. Assessment 23 identifies that it is sufficiently close to existing shops and other services allowing for the implementation o f a travel plan included in the S106 Agreement. This could support access to shops and services by a range of modal choice . This would limit the generation of private transport consistent with Paragraph 109 of the Framework . 89. I accord this matter moderate weigh t . Phosphate Mitigation 90. The proposed phosphate mitigation included would generate around 7. 35kg surplus to that required for the appeal scheme. T h is support the development of additional housing which in turn could further address the Autho r chronic housing undersupply. 91. However , whilst there would be some value to the credit in how it may be used to partially overcome a local constraint on housing supply the critical matter is how the phosph ate mitigation meets the tests included in Paragra p h 57 of the Framewor k for this scheme. The fact that this exceeds what is necessary for the appeal schem e has value but not the degree to which the appellant accords it. 92. For this reason, I accord only moderate weight to this matter . Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) 93. The appeal site would thro ugh the suggested mitigation result in a BNG of around 24%. However, there is no requirement for this scheme to deliver a Biodiversity Net Gain of just 10% given th e date of submission of the original application for planning permission . The fact that the re would be an anticipated BNG as suggested by Paragraph 186d) of the Framework is noted as a benefit of the scheme to which I accord moderate weight. Heritage B ala nce 94. The heritage assets include the listed buildings and structures around the appeal site that need consideration in the Heritage Balance. 95. I find that the appeal scheme would lead to less than substantial harm to the s etting of Stone Farm and length of as designated heritage asset s . T he harm would be less than substantial and lies within the low range of that scale of harm and accordingly, I find that the extent of harm would be overcome by the social , economic and environmental public ben efits included in the appeal scheme. These includ e the provision of market and affordable 22 CD 4.3e 23 CD4.3e Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 housing, job creation and increased spending power and improvements in biodiversity. in a locat ion which could enable access to shops and services by a choice of transport mode s . Conditions 96. I have considered the suggested conditions in light of the related discussion at Planning Practice Guidance. The condi tions and wording set out in the schedule below reflect that discussion, although I have amended a number to make them more concise, precise and enforceable. 97. In addition to the standard conditions relating to outline schemes, it is necessary , in order to provide certainty, to identify the plans to which the decision relates, but only insofar as they relate to the matter of access (Conditions 1 - 4) . 98. The parameter plan of the proposed scheme informed the evidence to the Inquiry. In order to ensure that the d evelopment would not give rise to environmental or other impacts any greater than those already assessed within the Environmental Statement and other evidence, a condition is necessary to secure compliance with those parameters ( Condition 5 ). 99. Other condit ions are imposed to ensure Highway Safety (6 and 7) in line with Policy TA5. I have deleted Condition 6, as originally drafted, as this is covered in Condition 7 as the installation of cycle parking can be addressed through the submission of details for ea ch phase of development. I have imposed Condition 8 in respect of construction management activities to protect highway safety. 100. Given the environmental importance of Phosphate Mitigate (Condition 9), I have imposed a planning condition to ensure the del ivery of the scheme of mitigation required to address the phosphates likely to arise from this scheme. 101. In order to protect the living conditions of surrounding properties I have imposed Condition 10 in respect of the requirements for a construction manage ment plan to minimise the impact of construction activities. 102. In accordance with Paragraph 167 of the Framework , details of a sustainable surface water drainage scheme are required (Condition 11) , together with details for it s management . Th is is essential to ensure that the scheme continues to perform as intended, in order to avoid pollution and to prevent increased risk of flooding. 103. Given the potential archaeological interest of the site, further on - site evaluation is required, pursuant to Paragraph 200 of the Framework (Conditions 12 and 13). I have also imposed a Condition 14 in respect of the location of dwellings in relation to the cascading water features (REF: 190812 SK 007) given the potential for fly infestation derived from the location of the se werage treatment works on the north western edge of the appeal site . 104. I have not imposed the suggested condition requiring the submission of a landscaping scheme, since landscaping is one of the reserved matters and any scheme would, by virtue of one of the other conditions, need to comply with a strategic landscape plan to be submitted. Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 Conclusions 105. Whilst I accord significant weight to the conflict between the most important policies and the appeal scheme the actual harms arising are limited in scale and extent . Furthermore , the schem e includes a range of benefits which outweigh the harms arising . 106. T he Council s the central importance of Yeovil. However, the landscape surrounding Yeovil includes a sign i f i cant array of con s tra int s 24 which include historic parks and gardens, flood risk areas and local wildlife sites which limit the potential for its growth as required by policy . The appeal scheme would allow development on land which has a moderate sensitivity to change and whilst its development would result in some adverse impacts these would be limited in extent . 107. There has been a chronic shortfall in ho using land in recent years and the appeal schem e would increase the supply of both market and affordable housing. 108. Furthermore, d espite the location of the site outside the urban framework of Yeovil it lies sufficiently close to shops and services to allow access by a range of transport modes. This moderates the degree of conflict which I find between the appeal scheme and the settlement policies. 109. T he appeal schem e would lead to economic benefits through employment opportunities and increased spending power in shops and services. Other benefits include the increase in BNG and improvements to woodland. 110. consistently raised by interested parties , I find that the Access Strategy would serve to mitiga te concerns over existing highway safety issues through controlled and uncontrolled crossing points and additional footway s . The Highway Authority had no objection to the scheme. 111. loss of BMV agricu lt u r al land the surrounding area includes large tracts of Grade 1 and 2 land . The economic arguments in favour of retention are outweighed by th e benefits arising from its devel opment. 112. Paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework requires that where the most important policies are out of date that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when ass essed against the Framework when taken as a whole. 113. I conclude that the benefits of the appeal scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm identified when assessed against the policies of the Development Plan, when taken as a whole. As su ch the proposed sustainable development. 114. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted. Stephen Wilkinson , INSPECTOR 24 CD6. 4 S l ides for officer presentation on YV2 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 Sc hedule of Conditions 1. The development to which this p ermission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. 2. Application(s) for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority be fore the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 3. Approval of the details of the (a) layout (b) scale (c) appearance and (d) landscaping of the site (hereinafter called the reserved matters) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Au thority before any development is commenced and the development shall be carried out as approved. 4. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan (Ref: 190812 L 01 02 A) Access Plan (Ref: Ref: 23037/PHL/01 Rev E) 5. The reserved matters applications shall be in accordance w i th the approved parameter plan (ref: 190 812 SK007 C) in respect of land use and building heights. 6. The proposed roads, including footways and turning spaces where applicable, shall be constructed in such a manner as to ensure that each dwelling, before it is occupied, shall be served by a properly consolidated and surfaced footway and carriageway to at least base course level between the dwelling and existing highway. 7. No development on the elements listed below shall commence until the following information h as been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For this purpose, plans and sections, indicating as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Plann ing Authority: a) estate roads b) footways c) tactile paving d) cycleways e) retaining walls f) vehicle overhang margins g) visibility splays h) carriageway gradients i) drive gradients j) car, motorcycle and cycle parking k) hard and soft structural land scape areas, l) pedestrian and cycle routes and associated vehicular accesses and crossings, m) all new junctions, n) proposed levels o) bus stops and lay - bys or alternative facilities, p) highway drainage Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 q) swept path analysis for a vehicle of 11.4m length r) central pedestrian reserves, bollards and lighting, and s) an estate street phasing and completion plan setting out the development phases and completion sequence by which the estate streets serving each phase of the development will be completed . The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the approved estate street phasing and completion plan. 8. No development shall commence, including any demolition works, until a construction management plan or constru ction method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved plan/statement shall be adhered to throughout the demolition/construction period. The plan/statement shall provide for: a) A construction pro gramme including phasing of works; b ) 24 hour emergency contact number; c ) Hours of operation; d ) Expected number and type of vehicles accessing the site: - Deliveries, waste, cranes, equipment, plant, works, visitors; - Size of construction vehicles; - Th e use of a consolidation operation or scheme for the delivery of materials and goods; - Phasing of works; e) Means by which a reduction in the number of movements and parking on nearby streets can be achieved (including measures taken to ensure satisfactor y access and movement for existing occupiers of neighbouring properties during construction): - Programming; - Waste management; - Construction methodology; - Shared deliveries; - Car sharing; - Travel planning; - Local workforce; - Parking facilities for staff and visitors; - On - site facilities; - A scheme to encourage the use of public transport and cycling; f) Routes for construction traffic, avoiding weight and size restrictions to reduce unsuitable traffic on residential roads; g) Locati ons for loading/unloading, waiting/holding areas and means of communication for delivery vehicles if space is unavailable within or near the site; h) Locations for storage of plant/waste/construction materials; i) Arrangements for the turning of vehicles, to be within the site unless completely unavoidable; j) Arrangements to receive abnormal loads or unusually large vehicles; k) Swept paths showing access for the largest vehicles regularly accessing the site and measures to ensure adequate space is availab le; l) Any necessary temporary traffic management measures; m) Measures to protect vulnerable road users (cyclists and pedestrians); n) Arrangements for temporary facilities for any bus stops or routes; o) Method of preventing mud being carried onto the hi ghway; Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 p) Methods of communicating the Construction Management Plan to staff, visitors and neighbouring residents and businesses. 9. Details of the proposed Constructed Treatment Wetland, as referenced in shall be provided with the first Reserved Matters Application, demonstrating the design effectiveness of the wetland in re moving the required phosphorus budget to ensure the development achieves nutrient neutrality. The details submitted shall also include a programme of implementation. No development shall commence until these details have been approved in writing by the Loc al Planning Authority and implementation shall be in accordance with the details approved. 10. To prevent pollution during construction, no development shall commence until a scheme for the prevention of pollution has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme should include details of the following: a) Site security. b) Fuel oil storage, bunding, delivery and use. c) Method statement identifying how both minor and major spillage will be dealt with. d) Containm ent of silt/soil contaminated run - off. e) Disposal of contaminated drainage, including water pumped from excavations. f) Site induction for workforce highlighting pollution prevention and awareness. g) Measures should be taken to prevent the runoff of any contaminated drainage during the construction phase. This needs an implementation claus e 11. No development shall commence until a detailed surface water drainage scheme, based on sustainable drainage principles has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage strategy shall ensure that surface water run - off post development is attenuated on site and discharged at a rate and volume no greater than greenfield run - off rates and volumes. Such works shall be carried ou t in accordance with the approved details. These details shall include: - a) Details of phasing (where appropriate). b) Information about the design storm period and intensity, discharge rates and volumes (both pre and post development), temporary storage facilities, means of access for maintenance (6 metres minimum), the methods employed to delay and control surface water discharged from the site, and the measures taken to prevent flooding and pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters. c) Any works required off site to ensure adequate discharge of surface water without causing flooding or pollution (whic h should include refurbishment of existing culverts and headwalls or removal of unused culverts where relevant). d) Flood water exceedance routes both on and off site, to require that no part of the site will flood during any storm up to and including the 1 in Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 30 event and that flooding during storm events in excess of this including the 1 in 100yr (plus 40% allowance for climate change) must be controlled within the designed exceedance routes demonstrated to prevent flooding or damage to properties. 12. Bef ore the commencement of the development hereby permitted the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, shall have secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) which has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The WSI shall include details of the archaeological excavation, the recording of heritage asset s identified , the analysis of evidence recovered from the site and publication of the re sults. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved WSI . 13. No building works shall commence until the site archaeological investigation has been completed and post - excavation analysis has been initiated in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Condition 12 and financial provision made for analysis, dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured . 14. No dwellings shall be located within 150m of any permanently wet pond Wetland/ phosphate mitigation defined on the parameter plan (ref: 190812 SK 007 ). END OF SCHEDULE APPEARANCES Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/23/3328322 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Mr P Robson of Counsel He called M r C Potterton CMLI D irector Potterton Associates Ltd M s R Tad man MRTPI Director of Tadman Planning Consultants Ltd FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr S Choongh of Counsel He called Mr J Berry CMLI , AIEMA , M.Arbor.A Director , Tyler Grange Group Ltd Mr M Kendrick MRTPI Director, Grassroots Planning INTERESTED PERSONS: Ms D Newman Local Resident Inquiry Documents ID1 ID2 ID3 Plan of allocations and permitted sites ID4 Draft S106 Agreement ID5 NCA Yeovil escarpment ID6 Draft conditions ID7 Note on phosphates with Appendix received 25 January 2024 ID8 Council closings ID9 Appellant closings Documents submitted after the Inquiry closed Completed S106 Agreement⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Conclusions 105. Whilst I accord significant weight to the conflict between the most important policies and the appeal scheme the actual harms arising are limited in scale and extent . Furthermore , the schem e includes a range of benefits which outweigh the harms arising . 106. T he Council s the central importance of Yeovil. However, the landscape surrounding Yeovil includes a sign i f i cant array of con s tra int s 24 which include historic parks and gardens, flood risk areas and local wildlife sites which limit the potential for its growth as required by policy . The appeal scheme would allow development on land which has a moderate sensitivity to change and whilst its development would result in some adverse impacts these would be limited in extent . 107. There has been a chronic shortfall in ho using land in recent years and the appeal schem e would increase the supply of both market and affordable housing. 108. Furthermore, d espite the location of the site outside the urban framework of Yeovil it lies sufficiently close to shops and services to allow access by a range of transport modes. This moderates the degree of conflict which I find between the appeal scheme and the …
⚖️ 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.