🏆 Winning Arguments

No statutory declarations had been provided stating that the HMO has been in use for 10 full years as an HMO for 8 people. The Council concluded that the submitted evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the property had been lawfully used as an 8 bed HMO sui generis for a period of up to 10 years up to the date of the application. In this instance, they considered that the evidence provided did not meet the necessary criteria to show that lawfulness had been gained. 15. I agree that the Applicants’ submitted evidence fell short of completeness in several areas. It appears there were deficiencies in the administrative requirements under the Housing Act that attach to the running of an HMO business. However, for the purposes of establishing the lawfulness of the use under the Planning Acts, the Applicants evidence of the continuous occupancy of the property as a large HMO by 8 persons throughout the 10 years shown by the complete list of assured shorthold agreements was sufficient. The Council’s concern that the tenancy agreements did not provide assurance that the full occupation of the property was as implied by those agreements is noted. But no counter evidence was shown …

20. Given that I have concluded that the land can be considered as grey belt the main issues in this appeal are: 1) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, with particular regard to the appeal site’s location within the Kent Downs National Landscape, and also due to its proximity to Ancient Woodland; and 2) the occupier’s personal circumstances along with other relevant considerations.

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The recognised unmet need at the current time is a concern but the environmental policies relating to the Kent Downs National Landscape, the Metropolitan Green Belt, along with the Framework’s Grey Belt criteria, and the general character and appearance considerations, suggest that the deemed planning application should be refused. 53. However, I must also balance this with the family’s personal circumstances. As mentioned, the needs and interests of children – in this case a small baby - are a primary consideration, particularly in terms of health care as education is unlikely to be an issue for a few years yet. This cannot be satisfied with a roadside existence, and a settled base, at least in the short term, is obviously important to their wellbeing. 54. Alongside this, the Council’s approach, by way of emerging policy is an indication that the authority is attempting to meet its statutory requirements by way of allocations to help meet the actual degree of unmet need. Given this gypsy strategy and the loca…

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

55. A temporary permission will also allow time for additional pitches to come forward, or for the appellant to make other arrangements whilst providing stability to the occupants, including the children, of the site. 56. Therefore, taking all these points together, the benefits of granting temporary permission would substantially outweigh the adverse affects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies of the Framework. 57. Consequently, the development is in conflict with the development plan. However, material considerations indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. 58. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and I will grant a temporary permission to the appellant and other occupiers of the site for a period of ten years. This will be restricted to the current occupiers as I have taken into account their personal circumstances and interests of the children in granting this permission. Conclusion 64. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal succeeds in ground (a) and a temporary condition is granted on the deemed planning application. https://www.gov.uk/planning-

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

11. The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and its impact on highway safety.

Consequently, there is limited evidence before me that the appeal development results in visibility conditions materially worse than those which previously existed. 21. Overall, I am not satisfied that the boundary treatment materially reduces safety for users of the highway network. The site has historically been enclosed by a combination of fencing and substantial hedge planting, and planning permission had been granted for a 2m high boundary fence at this location. Requirements in the notice also provide an option for the development to be altered so that it fully accords with the approved plans under PL/2024/01497/MINFHO, which as referenced above, would involve the erection of a solid boundary treatment up to 2m in height. In the absence of any technical highway evidence demonstrating a https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Appeal Decisions APP/Q4625/C/25/3371254, APP/Q4625/C/25/3371255 material worsening of visibility or highway conditions, I am not persuaded that there is conflict with Policy P8 of the Solihull Local Plan in terms of highway safety. Conclusion 22. The ground (a) appeal therefore succeeds. Conclusion 24. For the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal…

The appeal is dismissed

41. The parking, highway and refuse storage conditions are more relevant to a permission for a dwelling. However, it would not be wholly irrelevant to impose them on a permission for a building of this scale within a residential garden, as there could be some increase in use of the site if the building were used for purposes associated with the existing use of the land. Likewise if it were put to some other, hitherto, unknown use. 42. Importantly, if, as I have suggested here, any permission that I grant also means that the building can be used as a dwellinghouse on the provisions of S75(3) of the 1990 Act, then those conditions are clearly necessary. As is the restriction preventing use as an HMO, due to the small size of the site. I shall impose similar conditions here. Conclusion on ground (a) 43. The building at the site does not have any adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area or living conditions of neighbouring residents, whether or not it is in an active use. In the event that it could be put to use as a dwelling, conditions can ensure that any potential residual harm can be mitigated and sufficient facilities are provided. 44. Subject to the Conclusion …

3. The main issue is whether a refusal to grant the LDC was well founded. This turns on whether the proposed use would fall within Class C3 or Class C2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, and if it falls within Class C2, whether the change of use would be material.

15. I note the Council’s concerns about children from out of the borough being accommodated and their additional impacts on education, justice services, welfare services, the NHS and social housing services. I have no substantive evidence that the small number of children accommodated could have a material effect on area wide services. Moreover, anyone living in the house as a C3 dwelling might come from out of the borough and make use of those services anyway. The accommodation already exists, so the proposal does not increase the local population. 16. Furthermore, the appellant says that there is a shortage of children’s homes in Redbridge. He says that there are over 300 looked-after children in the borough and over 50% of these are placed outside the borough. The Council has not disputed these figures and therefore, I have no substantive evidence from the Council that Redbridge is taking on more children in care than it sends elsewhere. Therefore, I do not consider that there would be a significant planning consequence in relation to public services as a whole. 17. I conclude that, as a matter of fact and degree, there would not be a significant difference in the character of …

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

There is no photographic or documentary evidence of the keeping of horses on the land between 1980 and 1995. There is no documentary evidence of the use of the land, in the form of invoices or receipts, for the 24 year period 1995-2019 when it was rented to others; the evidence there is does not specifically refer to the land. There is no evidence of any use of the land, for the keeping of horses, for the four year period from 2019 up to date of the application. Historical access through the site to adjoining land and use of that land are not relevant matters. Nor is the condition of the buildings on the land, which are accepted by the Council to be lawful. 7. Despite the lack of documentary evidence there is no reason to doubt the claim made in the Appellant’s statement and in the sworn affidavit of her sister, that they each kept a pony on the land between 1980 and 1995. The use of the land for the keeping of horses subsisted continuously for in excess of ten years and thus became the lawful use of the land. Thereafter, again despite the absence of corroborating documentary evidence and as a matter of planning judgement, there is no reason to doubt that the use of the land conti…

The appeal is allowed and attached to this decision is an LDC describing the

6. The main issue in the determination of this appeal is therefore the effect on the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area, including any effect on wintering birds.

Conditions 23 and 24 state that no burning of materials shall take place on site during construction, demolition or site preparation works, and that dust shall be managed, both to prevent nuisance to neighbouring occupiers. Condition 25 requires that vehicles related to the construction of the development not be parked off-site. This is to prevent obstruction of the public highway. 26. Condition 26 requires the implementation of a programme of archaeological works at the site. Condition 27 secures minimum accessibility standards for the housing at the site. Condition 28 requires minimum space standards for each new home to be built as part of the development. Condition 29 secures completion of the approved access before occupation of the development. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/M2840/W/25/3366989 27. Condition 30 requires the submission and approval of a Great Crested Newt NonLicensed Method Statement, with the development proceeding in accordance with its conclusions. It was suggested at the hearing that consultee responses did away with this requirement. However, the Nature Development response of 14 May 2024 seeks further information on Great …

The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for proposed