🏆 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

Conclusion 126. I appreciate SO DC’s and TFAG’s submissions reflect the material difficulties in developing the appeal site , requiring due scrutiny particularly in light of all detected shortfalls . 127. Even so, I must make clear a decision on the appeal case s in dispute is not an opportunity to go behind the principle of allowing housing development already granted to the appellant. The starting point for any decision maker is that such principle has already been formally established . 128. When assessed I find that the technical deficiencies in the appellant’s proposals are not strong enough reasons to resist the appeals. In totality, allowing for planning condition and legal agreement use , I find that there is adequate information available regarding the risks to local water resources and the PWS . The collective stabilisation, ground stability, pollution, drainage and flood risk impacts would be acceptable. A s well as there being reasonable mechanisms available to facilitate PWS and wider locality protection s meeting SO DC’s reasons for refusal they applied when determining the relevant applications . Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP…

However, from my reading of these it is clear that each decision falls to be considered, as a matter of fact and degree, and based on the site - specific circumstances, and the evidence before the decision maker. Whilst I have had regard to these, in this case, I have based my decision on the facts and circumstances of this particular case , the layout of properties in the Close, and on the guidance provided within the TG. 18. Therefore, as a matter of fac t and degree, and on the balance of probabilities, I consider that the Devon Close elevation containing the most prominent architectural features is the principal elevation . It also provides the propert y’s address and postcode . T he development would not fail to meet the limitations under Paragraph B.1(c) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the GPDO , since t he proposed roof extension would not extend beyond the plane of any existing roof slope which form the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse and fronts a highway . 19. The Council have raised no further conflict against any of the other limitations and Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above I conclude, on the evidence now available, that the Council’s refusal to gra…

The Council have identified they have a 5 - year housing land supply (5YHLS) deficit at 3 .9 years. Accordingly, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged for decision making purposes . As I have found that any effect s of the proposal on Habitat sites can be satisfactorily mitigated, t here are no assets as referenced in paragraph 11(d)(i) and footnote 7 of the Framework that would provide a strong reason for refusal . 28. Accordingly , the test set out in paragraph 11(d)(ii) applies, which states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken a s a whole, including the key policies cited. 29. The proposal would make a small but positive contribution to the Council's housing land supply shortfall through a windfall site. There would be some limited economic benefit during the construction phase of development, and longer - term benefits in support of local services and businesses from its future occupants. 30. In policy terms, the site conflicts with the spatial strategy of the development plan. However, in circumstances where the Counc…

Conclusion 19. Whilst the position ing of the fencing and gates unfortunately restricts public access through the appellant ’ s land , this does not significantly increase walking and cycling routes between any key areas brought to my attention , and alternative safe routes of similar time and distance are available . 20. T here is no legal obligation for the appellant to enable members of the public to cross any part of their land, and alternative measures could be used to prevent this without the need for planning permission . Given the appellant ’ s strong desire to prevent members of the public from using the footway / cycleway adjacent to its service yard , for security and health and safety reasons, the prospect of this occurring by alternative means, is more than merely theoretical. Accordingly, I afford the fallback position significant weight. 21. These material considerations indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan . Consequently, I conclude that the appeal succeeds on ground (a). I shall grant planning permission for the matters described in the notice. The appeal on ground s (f) and (g) do not therefore fall to be c…

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…