🏆 Winning Arguments

conclusion that there was no public benefit to outweigh the harm identified. Whether that was a sound approach is not before me but this contrasts markedly with the approach taken to the appeal The National Planning Policy Framework was revised on 17 August 2026 such that the paragraphs quoted in the Council’s Reason for refusal do not correspond with the paragraphs (now policies) in the revised Framework. I have cited the latter in my main Decision. 1 https://www.gov.uk/planning-

5. The main issues are the effect of the proposed advertisement on the visual amenity of the area, with particular regard to the CA and Grade II listed buildings.

9. The proposed advertisement would be visible from the CA and listed buildings. However, due to its location to the north of the CA combined with its location on the side of a building it would only be visible in views looking north, out of the CA. In these views it would be seen in the context of the rugby stadium, nearby commercial uses and public house. As the CA and listed buildings are already experienced, and in many cases, seen with, diverse advertisements, there would be no harm from the proposal being within their setting. Thus, it would preserve the settings of the CA and listed buildings. 10. Adjacent properties are set back from the road, and the billboard would be positioned perpendicular to them. Although there would be some light spill, given the orientation, separation distances and existing street lighting, the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Furthermore, conditions limiting light levels would ensure that the proposal would not have a harmful impact on nearby occupiers. 11. In light of the above, the proposed advertisement would not harm visual amenity. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above the appeal …

The appeal is allowed and express consent is granted for the display of the

7. The main issues in the appeal are: • The effect of the proposed development on the setting of nearby listed buildings and the Beckington Conservation Area (CA); • Whether the proposed development would be likely to unacceptably increase the risk to bathing water quality at the designated Farleigh Hungerford river bathing site; • Whether the proposed development would be suitably located and whether it would be harmful to the long term sustainability of the settlement.

The balance in this case is relatively straightforward. • There would be harm to the setting of listed buildings and the CA. This must carry considerable importance and weight even through the harm would be limited as explained above. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/25/3375062 • The benefits of the proposal include the provision of market housing, which carries significant weight in a location where there is evidenced unmet need. • The provision of affordable housing also attracts significant weight. • In addition there are benefits resulting from the provision of open space available to the public and the economic benefits associated with the construction phase and support for village services. These carry moderate weight. • There is no conflict with the development plan in respect of drainage or location as set out above. 40. In my judgement the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the harm to heritage assets. Local Plan Policy DP3 requires that proposals must justify any harm to heritage assets and demonstrate overriding public benefits which would outweigh harm. The proposal complies with this requirement, which is also generally com…

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of 20

4. The main issue is whether the Council’s decision to refuse to issue an LDC was well founded. This turns on whether: • Use as an artists’ studio continued uninterrupted for a 10 year period prior to the LDC application; and • The use that has taken place at the building falls within Class E of Part A of Schedule 2 to The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/V5570/X/25/3360983

24. The Use Classes Order establishes at Article 2 that “industrial process” means a process for or incidental to purposes including ‘the making of any article or part of any article (including a ship or vessel, or a film, video or sound recording)’. It seems to me that the creation of items of art would, in most cases, fall naturally within that definition. An appeal decision from 2014, together with extracts from 2 planning use directories and The National Land Use Database provided by the appellant support my view that artists’ studios are generally likely to fall within Class E. 25. The Council argues that there is insufficient information to demonstrate Class E use in this instance, and that the actual use of the building might not fall within a use class at all. However, I am satisfied that this building has been used primarily for the making of items of art, such that the use can properly be regarded as falling within Class E. The annual open day, during which art works were displayed, does not indicate any different use, but is rather a reflection of the primary use as an artists’ studio in which items of art were made. That is consistent with a Class E use. None of the ev…

The appeal is allowed and attached to this decision is a certificate of lawful use or

The Council have not provided any substantial evidence explaining whether uPVC windows in the surrounding properties were fitted prior to or post the introduction of the Article 4 Direction in 1996. 9. The windows, whilst being uPVC in material, are of a sliding sash design and given the wide variety of window materials and designs that are prominent in the street scene, the windows subject of this appeal are not intrusive features that appear out of keeping with the surrounding window character. 10. I note the intention of the CAMS for windows in this area to replicate original design of timber sliding sash windows. However, the character and appearance of the properties on Roker Park Road, specifically in relation to windows, is mixed. The windows in the appeal property are of a quality design being sliding sash, and the uPVC materials do blend in with the existing mixed variety of window materials in the area. 11. Accordingly, I find that the windows do preserve the character and appearance of the RPCA and are in accordance with Policies BH1, BH7 and BH8 of the Sunderland City Council Core Strategy and Development Plan which seeks development to respect and enhance the positive…

The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed and planning permission

This is somewhat inconsistent with the Framework and therefore I give the conflict with those policies reduced weight. I find no conflict with Local Plan Policy BHC1 as this is consistent with the Framework as it provides for public benefits to outweigh the harm. Unlike LP Policy DMP1, LP Policy BHC1 specifically relates to heritage assets. Consequently, I find no conflict with the development plan as a whole. 14. The Mapesbury Conservation Area Design Guide advises against rooflights on front roof slopes but as I have explained above, the harm is outweighed by public benefits. 15. I note the Council’s concern that an undesirable precedent would be set by allowing rooflights, but each application and appeal must be considered on its own merits and I have considered this appeal against specific issues in relation to the living conditions of existing lawful flats. 16. The appeal succeeds on ground (a). 1 APP/T5150/W/20/3251035 APP/T5150/C/03/1136394,89 and 90 3 APP/T5150/C/08/2062858, 2062859 2 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/T5150/C/24/3342857 Conclusion 18. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal succeeds on ground (a). I shall grant …

The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed and planning permission

3. There are three main issues in this case: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the Bollin Valley Local Landscape designation. • The effect of the proposal on highway safety in relation to the proposed junction onto Prestbury Road. • Whether the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of development plan policy and the National Planning Policy Framework ('the Framework') 4. The highway safety issue was a matter raised by local residents, but not by the Council. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectora…

Planning balance and conclusion 88. As set out above, there would be minor harm to the character and appearance of the area, and low levels of less than substantial harm to two heritage assets. In relation to the latter I have already concluded that the public benefits are more than sufficient to outweigh that harm. 89. The Council’s reason for refusal stated that the proposal represented inappropriate development in the Green Belt. However, as set out above I have concluded that this is not the case, and have referenced the Framework policy which attributes significant weight in favour of the appeal proposal. 90. I attribute substantial weight to the provision of general needs and affordable housing in the light of the shortfall in the housing land supply position 91. In addition I ascribe additional limited weight individually to various elements of the proposal – the provision of on site public open space; improved pedestrian routes; public transport provision; and the short/medium term growth in construction jobs https://www.gov.uk/planning-

The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted (with all matters