🏆 Winning Arguments

conclusions on this development. 25. A neighbouring occupier has queried the accuracy of the red line on the application drawings. However, the appropriate ownership certificate was served on the neighbour advising of the development before the application was submitted. 26. A neighbour expressed concerns about w indows facing into their property over the shared boundary. These windows are existing and at a high level in the wall s , but would serve habitable rooms and bathrooms in units C and D. Where these windows would serve habitable rooms these would be dual - aspect or open plan rooms with other windows to provide outlook. Accordingly, a suitably worded c o ndition could ensure that these windows are retained as non - opening with obscured glazing to preserve the privacy of the neighbouring occupiers. While the neighbour also expressed concern about light from these windows there would be no change to their size or siting . This would therefore not resu lt in unacceptable harm to neighbour living conditions. 27. Interested parties raised concerns about the council’s handling of the application in relation to public consultation and the extent to which they sought the views o…

Conclusion 43. I have concluded that the Inn is no longer viable as a public house . Not withstanding the harm arising from the l oss of some community and social value, as well as minor harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, that loss would be outweighed by the listed building’s continued upkeep and its future occupation as a residence . 44. There is no conflict with the local development plan or the Framework , and no material considerations of such weight to lead me to conclude other than that the appeal should be allowed. A Edgington

16. The development at the very least preserves the character and appearance of the host property, street scene and the adjoining BC CA. The development therefore accords with the relevant provisions of M LP policies D12.1, D12.4 and D12.5; policy D4 of the London Plan, adopted March 2021; and the Framework. Collectively, these require development to be inclusive, sustainable, efficient and of a high quality of design to maintain the existing buildings across the urban and suburban environment , alongside the prot ection of heritage assets , amongst other things. Conclusion on ground (a) 3 Dated 10/2025 4 South Oxfordshire DC v SSE & J Donaldson [1991] CO/1440/89 Appeal Decision APP/T5720/C/24/3350509 https://www.gov.uk/planning- inspectorate 4 17. Overall, the development will not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property, the street scene nor setting of the BCCA . The development would therefore conform with the intentions of the relevant policies in the Local Plan and the Framework as detailed above. Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal succeed s on ground (a). I shall grant planning permission for the developme…

In particular, the scope to strengthen the existing hedgerows and to secure a landscape - led layout w ould allow the residual harm to be limited through careful and sensitive detailed design. 19. In the context of a confirmed shortfall in the five - year housing land supply, a clear and pressing local affordable housing need and the limited contribution this particular site makes to the special qualities of the CNL, the adverse impacts of granting pe rmission in principle would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out at Paragraph 11 of the Framework applies. Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3370001 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 20. The Framework is government policy and therefore carries substantial weight. As the most important development plan policies for determining the appeal are deemed to be out of date, I give greater weight to the policies of the Framework. This indicates tha t a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Conditions 21. The PPG sets out that it is not possible for Conc…

Conclusion 89. Overall, and notwithstanding the provisions of Policy AD1 of the ADLP, it is my assessment that the conflict with Policy AD42 of the ADLP and Policy 7S of the BBLP brings the proposal into conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. However, i n this case, the material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons give above, the appeal should be allowed. E Catcheside

The appeal scheme accords with Local Plan Policy SS11 . It would not be ‘major development’ in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . 65. There would be some adverse effects leading to some conflict with Local Plan Policy EM1. These , though, should be understood in the context of the Policy SS11 allocation. Any Policy SS11 compliant scheme would have some landscape and visual impacts. The appeal scheme’s effects would be localised and any harm would be no more than moderate in the longer term. It would have no significant effect s on trees and accord with Framework paragraph 187 . 66. There would also be benefits in landscape and visual terms compared to the approach favoured by the Council resulting from the creation of a tree belt rather than rel ying purely on on - site landscaping . 67. Overall, the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the National Landscape and be compatible with the Statutory Duty . Moreover, for the reasons outlined above, the scheme would accord with the development plan viewed as a whole and comply with paragraph 189 of the Framework . 68. Although I have not done so , had I concluded that the appeal scheme were to represent ‘major development’ , in…

As such, I conclude that the shopfront design preserve s the character and appearance of the area and satisf ies the statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 14. For similar reasons, the shopfront design does no t conflict with Policies 38, 39 and 40 of the City Plan 2019 - 2040 (adopted April 2021) . Together these policies seek high - quality and sensitive design , having regard to the prevailing character , materials, architectural quality and degree of uniformity . Development within conservation areas should preserve or enhance their character and appearance, conserving heritage assets in a manner proportionate to their significance. Positive features, including unliste d buildings that contribute positively, should be retained, with opportunities taken to secure enhancements where possible. 15. The Council cite conflict with the advice contained in the 'Shopfronts, Blinds and Signs' d esign guide (adopted 1993). However, no specific element of the design guid e has been identified with which the proposed shopfront conflicts . In any event, having found the details to be acceptable, the shopfront design is consider…

The provision of four or five additional dwellings would be beneficial to the local housing stock, with social and economic benefits derived from their construction and occupation. The use of a greenfield site where the re would be an increase in building density gains some support from Policy 21 of the Local Plan f rom an environmental perspective. Given the s ize of the proposal, although these benefits would be moderate in scale, they could be delivered quickly. 27. However, I have found that the site would not be suitable for residential development given its conflict with the local development strategy and it would lead to a moderate level of harm to the character and appearance of the area. My conclusion relating t o the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the SAC is a