🏆 Winning Arguments

Real PINS Inspector reasoning from appeals where refusals on Highways 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 Highways 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 3376692 (Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area *) — 2026-05-29

📍 Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * LPA code: E07000006 PINS reference: 3376692 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 March 2026 by M Chalk BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 Boveney Court Farm , Boveney Road, Dorney, W indsor , Buckinghamshire, SL4 6QG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) 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 Eton College against Buckinghamshire Council. • The application Ref is PL/25/0354/FA. • The development proposed is d emolition of open sided barn, conversion, alteration and change of use of existing buildings from Use Class B8 to Use Class C3 to provide 7 residential units and construction of 5 new residential units, to provide a total of 12 residential units (2 x 2 bedroom; 6 x 3 bedroom; and 4 x 4 bedroom) including hard and soft landscaping, attenuation pond, bin and cycle stores, car parking, infrastructure and associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for d emolition of open sided barn, conversion, alteration and change of use of existing buildings from Use Class B8 to Use Class C3 to provide 7 residential units and construction of 5 new residential units, to provide a total of 12 residential units (2 x 2 bed room; 6 x 3 bedroom; and 4 x 4 bedroom) including hard and soft landscaping, attenuation pond, bin and cycle stores, car parking, infrastructure and associated works at Boveney Court Farm , Boveney Road, Dorney, Windsor, Buckinghamshire, SL4 6QG in accordan ce with the terms of the application, Ref PL/25/0354/FA and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Applications for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Eton College against the council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matters 3. The appeal proposal is functionally unchanged from that previously dismissed on appeal in July 2024 1 . Since that time additional information has been provided in relation to the effect on bats or other protected and important species. 4. The site is in the Green Belt. In determining the previous appeal on this site in July 2024 the Inspector found that the proposal was not inappropriate development as it comprised the redevelopment of previously developed land which would not cause substan tial harm to openness. That appeal was assessed against the December 2023 National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) , but the most recent Framework update in December 2024 contains essentially the same exception to what constitutes inappropriate de velopment at paragraph 154(g). 1 PINS ref: APP/N0410/W/23/3335905 Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 There are no changes to the scale or siting of the proposed development from that earlier decision. It would be contained principally within the bounds of the existing built form and hardstanding within the site. While there would be some loss of openness from the new houses due to their siting and height, I agree with my colleague that this would amount to no more than moderate harm. Consequently, the proposal would accord with the exception at paragraph 154(g) of the Framework. 5. Like cases should be determined in like manner, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the December 2024 revisions to the Framework state at paragraph 156 that major housing development in the Green Belt should provide affordable housing that reflects local or national policy , necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure, and the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public. These are known as the Golden Rules and are a material consideration in the determination of this appeal . 6. A separate application for listed building consent 2 was submitted to the council for works to a Grade II listed barn on the site. Consent was granted in September 2025 for those works , and therefore this is not a consideration in this appeal . Main Issues 7. There is no dispute between the main parties about the proposed improvements to local infrastructure. The main issues are therefore : • Whether the appeal proposal would provide sufficient affordable housing , • Whether it would make acceptable provision of open space , • The effect of the proposal on protected and important species and habitats, with particular regard to bats ; and, • Given local concerns about safe access in the event of flooding, I have also elevated this to a main issue having sought the views of the main parties . Reasons Affordable housing 8. The Framework states that major housing development in this location must contribute 50% affordable housing . National Planning Practice Guidance states that for development which is subject to the Golden Rules a site specific viability assessment should not be undertaken for the purpose of reducing developer contributions, including affordable housing. It is not disputed that the development would not provide 50% affordable housing , with a contribution equating to 21% towards offsite housing instead proposed. 9. Co r e Policy 3 of the South Bucks Core Strategy require s at least 40% in schemes of 5 units and above to be affordable . The policy allow s both for off - site provision and for a lower contribution where it is clearly demonstrated that this is not economically viable. The appeal proposal does not therefore conflict with Core 2 Council ref: PL/25/0355/HB Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 Policy 3, as the council have accepted that a fully compliant scheme would not be economically viable. 10. Nonetheless, the development would fail to provide sufficient affordable housing , contrary to the Framework. Open space 11. The Framework further requires that the development provide new green spaces that are accessible to the public, or improvements to the same. The council have identified a requirement for 0.11 hectares of open space to be provided as part of this development, including a Local Area of Play of at least 100 square metres. The appellant does not dispute this requirement. 12. N o public open space would be provided as part of the development. Furthermore, no contributions are included in the submitted unilateral undertaking towards the improvement of existing public green space. 13. Consequently, the development would also fail to make acceptable provision for open space, contrary to the requirements of the Framework. Bats and protected species 14. The previous appeal on this site was dismissed as the Inspector found that the bat surveys for the site were out of date and therefore it was unlikely that Natural England would grant a mitigation licence for the proposed works . S ubsequently new surveys have been conducted which provide an updated position statement for bats on the site. 15. I have had regard to my duties under Regulations 9(1) and 9(3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 in relation to nature conservation. In this instance the presence of bats within the buildings has been established by the provided surveys. These have been reviewed by Natural England alongside their grant of a licence for works to a neighbouring building. Natural England ha s indicated that it would likely accept the mitigation methods described. 16. The council’s ecology consultee has also reviewed the additional information and advised that the development would be acceptable, subject to conditions. C onditions securing suitable care and mitigation measures are set out in the attached schedule. The proposed mitigation measures would minimise the disturbance to bats from a development that would deliver new housing in a district where there is a recognised shortfall of housing land through the redevelopment of redundant buildings . The development would therefore successfully meet the tests for receiv ing a European protected species licence from Natural England, subject to compliance with the proposed conditions . T here would consequently be no unacceptable impacts to bats arising from the proposed development. 17. The appeal proposal would therefore accord with Core Policy 9 of the Core Strategy, which requires biodiversity resources to be conserved and enhanced. Flooding 18. The appeal site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3. A flood risk assessment has been provided . While not a concern raised by the council or its internal consultees, there Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 is public interest in the possibility of flooding causing a loss of access from the appeal site. The Environment Agency noted in a consultation response that the development would result in a situation of d anger to m ost people in the event of flooding with a danger of loss of life for the general public . The main parties’ comments were sought on this point . 19. The appeal site lies between the River Thames and the Jubilee River. This latter watercourse was constructed as a flood relief channel for the River Thames. However, subsequent flooding has shown that the design of the Jubilee River was inadequate to handle higher levels of overflow. Residents and the Parish Council have therefore expressed concerns that in the event of further flooding occupiers of the proposed houses would be at risk due to being unable to evacuate. 20. F looding of a scale that would affect access to the appeal site would occur in a 1 in 100 flood event. Such an event would affect the wider Thames Valley, and any effect on the access to the site would be preceded by several days of flood effects in the wider area. This would provide advance warning to residents of a potential need to evacuate , with updates available should the water level continue to rise. 21. The risk to residents of being unable to evacuate is therefore slight , considering the slim possibility of a flood event of sufficient magnitude occurring and the considerable lead time before the evacuation route would be affected . Paragraph 181 of the Framework states that in areas at risk of flooding development should only be allowed where, amongst other considerations, safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate. Given the low level of risk, the development would accord with this requi rement. Other Matters 22. The appeal site lies within the Boveney Conservation Area , and I have a duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving its character or appearance . There is also a Grade II listed building on the site, identified as building B on the submitted plans , and I must have special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting . The Conservation A rea is characterised by scattered properties of varying ages set in spacious gardens and other open spaces. The listed building is a 17th or 18th century timber - framed building finished partly in weatherboarding and with a tiled roof. The farmyard provides the setting within which the barn is principally experienced . In determining the previous appeal on this site my colleague concluded that the proposal would result in a slight enhancement to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The appeal proposal is identical to that scheme, and there is no evidence before me to lead me to find otherwise. It would also therefore preserve the setting of the listed building. 23. The development has been proposed despite concerns over its viability. However, a contribution towards affordable housing would be provided and the unilateral undertaking allows for a further viability review as part of the development . This could secure additional revenue if the return on the development exceeds that which is expected . It also secures contributions towards the provision of NHS services. I see no reason to doubt that the contributions would be used as identified in the undertaking. The council has asked for the undertaking to be varied to take account of different figures . However, given the lack of viability of the development I am content that the undertaking as submitted is acceptable . Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 24. My attention has been drawn to a recent decision made by the council to refuse permission for the residential redevelopment of a site elsewhere in Dorney . I note that this other development was found to fail the sequential test for flooding and the site was found to not be in a sustainable location . Given these significant differences the council’s decision does not lead me to alter my 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 of consultees on the matter of flood risk. However, i t is not within the scope of this appeal to address th ese concerns . 28. The site is located outside the built - up areas of the surrounding settlements. Occupiers would be dependent to an extent on private vehicles but no more so than those in neighbouring properties, and there are some amenities in the nearby settlements within walking or cycling distance. While the road into the main built - up area of Dorney does not have a footpath along it, it is fairly wide and visibility along it is good. I am therefore satisfied that the site is not an unsustainable location for residential development. 29. The development makes provision for wildlife habitats which would be secured by condition. This is supported by the council, and there is no detailed evidence before me to suggest that such measures would not be effective. The construction environmental management plan would detail the existing biodiversity features of the site, a nd explain how harm would be avoided during construction. Planning balance 30. The appeal proposal would not comply with the Golden Rules set out in the Framework for major housing development in the Green Belt. As the proposal complies with one of the exceptions set out in paragraph 154 of the Framework this would not make it inappr opriate development in the Green Belt, but a failure to comply does weigh against the proposal. 31. The council can only demonstrate a housing land supply o f 0.91 years, which is an acute shortfall against the minimum requirement of 5 years. Accordingly, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 32. The development would make a contribution towards affordable housing , albeit not a policy - compliant one. The shortfall therefore attracts moderate negative weight in the overall balance. 33. The appeal site is next to Dor n ey Common , a large area of public green space. Given the proximity to existing public space t he lack of provision of , or contribution to, public space therefore also attracts moderate weight against the proposal . 34. G iven the council’s housing land supply position, the harm arising from the failure to comply with the Golden Rules would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the considerable benefits that wo uld result from the proposed development. Planning permission should therefore be granted. Conditions 35. The council has recommended conditions . I have considered these against national planning practice guidance and, where necessary, amended the wording . 36. I have imposed conditions relating to the commencement of development (1) and confirming the approved plans (2) for the sake of certainty. I have omitted from the list of approved plans those which are not to scale as these are informative but cannot be considered enforceable. 37. Conditions requiring the approval of materials (3) and compliance with the approved arboricultural method statement (4) are reasonable to secure an acceptable finished appearance for the development. 38. Conditions 5, 6 and 7 ensure that development does not proceed on site if the land is found to be contaminated unless that contamination is remediated . Conditions 8 and 9 secure the access to and within the site, together with parking. Condition 10 ensures that reasonable archaeological investigat i ons are carried out on site as part of the approved development. 39. Conditions 11 to 15 would prevent any undue effect to biodiversity from the development and provide certainty about the protection of bats in particular. 40. Flood risk at the site and surface water management would be controlled by c onditions 16 to 20 . These would include compliance with the submitted flood risk assessment, agreement of a flood risk management plan which would include evacuation plans and information for future occupiers , agreement of surface water management measures and agreement of details of maintenance for the site’s drainage system. 41. A condition requiring that obscured glazing be fitted to windows in Units C and D that face onto a shared boundary (2 1 ) is reasonable to prevent loss of privacy to the neighbouring occupiers. C onclusion 42. For the reasons set out above the appeal is allowed. M Chalk INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 Schedule of planning conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos : 5540 - 1100 - REV - I Proposed Residential Development Location Plan 5540 - 1101 - REV - E Existing Site Block Plan 5540 - 1102 - REV - K Proposed Site Block Plans 5540 - 1103 - REV - H Development Footprint Comparison Plan and Table 5540 - 1104 - REV - E Lighting Strategy 5540 - 1200 - REV - E Existing Plans – Unit B 5540 - 1201 - REV - E Existing Plans – Units C,D,E,F1,F2 and G 5540 - 1202 - REV - D Existing Roof Plan – Units C,D,E,F1,F2 and G 5540 - 1210 - REV - H Proposed Plans – Unit B 5540 - 1211 - REV - H Proposed Plans – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G 5540 - 1212 - REV - H Proposed Plan – Units H - J and K - L - M 5540 - 1213 - REV - E Proposed Roof Plans – Units C,D,E,F1,F1 and G 5540 - 1233 - REV - E Ground Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit B 5540 - 1234 - REV - D First Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit B 5540 - 1235 - REV - D Roof Demolition Plan and Current Condition Unit B 5540 - 1236 - REV - E Ground Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit C and D 5540 - 1237 - REV - D Roof Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit C and D 5540 - 1238 - REV - D Ground Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit E 5540 - 1239 - REV - D Roof Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit E 5540 - 1240 Existing Open Sided Barn – To Be Demolished 5540 - 1301 - REV - B Existing Elevations and Section – Unit B 5540 - 1302 - REV - C Existing Elevation and Section s – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G 5540 - 1303 - REV - D Existing Elevations and Sections – Unit C,D,E,F1,F2,G 5540 - 1311 - REV - D Proposed Elevations and Sections – Unit B 5540 - 1312 - REV - G Proposed Elevations – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G (1/2) 5540 - 1313 - REV - H Proposed Elevations – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G (2/2) and Sections 5540 - 1314 - REV - F Proposed Elevations and Section – Units H – J 5540 - 1315 - REV - H Proposed Strip Elevations 5540 - 1320 - REV - A Proposed Elevations and Sections – Units K - L - M 5540 - 1321 Proposed Bin Store Floor Plans and Elevations 5540 - 1322 - REV - A Existing and Proposed Strip Elevations 5540 - 1335 - REV - A External Current Condition and Demolitions - Unit B 5540 - 1336 - REV - B Internal Current Condi tion – Unit B 5540 - 1337 - REV - A Externals Current Condition and Demolition – Units C - D - E 5540 - 1338 - REV - A Externals Current Condition and Demolition – Units C - D - E 5540 - 1355 - REV - B Unit B – Elevations as Proposed 5540 - 1356 - REV - B Unit B – Sections as Proposed 5540 - 1357 - REV - B Units C - D - E – Front and Rear Elevations as Proposed 5540 - 1358 - REV - B Units C - D - E – Side Elevations as Proposed 5540 - 1401 - REV - C Barn B – Proposed Typical Section and Details 5540 - 1402 Units C & D – Proposed Typical Section Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 5540 - 1403 Unit E – Proposed Typical Section 5540 - 1404 - REV - C Barn B – Proposed Typical Connection Detail 5540 - 1405 - REV - A Barns C & D – Typical Conservation Roof light Detail 20102 - SFK - B - GF - DR - S - 0100 T1 Barn B Plans, Section and Elevations as Existing 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0200 T2 Barn B Demolition 20102 - SFK - B - GF - DR - S - 0300 T1 Barn B Ground Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - 1 F - DR - S - 0301 T2 Barn B First Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - R - DR - S - 0302 T2 Barn B Roof Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0303 T1 Barn B Section as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0304 T2 Barn B Steelwork Plan and Details 20102 - SFK - A - XX - DR - S - 0407 Rev B Detail 7 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0411 Rev B Detail 11 – Rafter Repairs 20102 - SFK - CDE - GF - DR - S - 0300 P1 Buildings C, D & E Ground Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - CDE - GF - DR - S - 0301 P1 Buildings C, D & E First Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - Gen - XX - DR - S - 0412 Detail 12 – Wall / Soleplate Repairs 3) Prior to any works above ground floor slab level, a detailed schedule of works and materials to be used to for the development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority . The details to be submitted shall include the following: a) Elevational materials to be used on existing and proposed buildings; b) Matching brick bond to plinth of listed building and mortar mix; c) All internal and external new joinery details (doors and windows) at an appropriate scale, including sections and glazing bars; d) Details of contemporary glass framing system; e) Details of insulation to be provided for listed building and curtilage listed buildings; f) Metal rainwater goods; g) Details of roof lights and lanterns h) Details of hard surfacing to be used throughout the site i) Details of any new external flues, vents, grills, or external pipework The development shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the approved details. 4) The development shall be implemented in accordance with the document titled Tree c ondition s urvey, Arboricultural Implications Assessment a nd p rotection r ecommendations w ith descriptions of landscape enhancements dated 7 January 2025 , and the plans contained within it , submitted and approved as part of the planning application . The works shall be carried out under the supervision of a retained arboricultural specialist to ensure that the phasing of the development accords with the stages detailed in the method statement , and that the correct materials and techniques are employed. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 5) Prior to any below ground works commencing on site , the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority: i) A site investigation, based on the Phase 1 Ground Condition Assessment prepared by Stantec and dated January 2025 , to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. This should include an assessment of the potential risks to: human health, property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, pests, woodland and service lines and pipes, adjoining land, ground waters and surface waters, ecological systems, archaeological sit es and ancient monuments. ii) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (i) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. iii) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (ii) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangement s for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. 6) Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme and prior to the first use or occupation of the development, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced together w ith any necessary monitoring and maintenance programme and copies of any waste transfer notes relating to exported and imported soils shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The approved monitoring and maintenance programme shall b e implemented and continued in accordance with the approved details . 7) Any contamination that is found during the course of construction of the development hereby permitted that was not previously identified shall be reported immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be su spended until a risk assessment has been carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found, the development shall not resume or continue until remediation and verification schemes have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 8) No part of the approved development shall be occupied until the existing means of access has been sited and laid out in general accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with the Buckinghamshire Council guide note "Commercial Vehicular Access Within the P ublic Highway". 9) The scheme for parking, garaging and manoeuvring indicated on the submitted plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall be retained thereafter. 10) No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, have undertaken a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation , including details of how any findings shall be recorded, which has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 11) The development shall not commence until a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (the HMMP), prepared in accordance with the approved biodiversity metric calculation and its supporting documents , has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The HMMP shall include : (a) a non - technical summary; (b) the roles and responsibilities of the people or organisation(s) delivering the HMMP; (c) the planned habitat creation and enhancement works to create or improve habitat to achieve the biodiversity net gain in accordance with the approved metric ; (d) the management measures to maintain habitat in accordance with the approved biodiversity metric calculation for a period of 30 years from the completion of development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The created and/or enhanced habitat specified in the approved HMMP shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved HMMP. 12) Prior to the commencement of development above ground level, an ecological enhancements scheme to detail bat roost replacement features, such as bat boxes, bat tiles/access features and bat lofts, swift boxes and sparrow boxes, reptile hibernacula/log pile s, stag beetle log piles, wildlife kerbs, and gaps at ground level of boundary fences for the movement of hedgehogs, shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The development shall proceed in accordance with the ecological enhancements, which shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the development and retained thereafter. 13) Before any construction works hereby approved are commenced, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) detailing, in full, measures to protect existing habitat during construction works and to safeguard protected and notable species, shall be sub mitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The CEMP should be completed in accordance with the British Standard on Biodiversity BS 42020:2013 with these details below: a) Details of what biodiversity features could be impacted on and what development activities could be potentially damaging; b) A rolling timetable of when and where specific measures to avoid / reduce impacts are to be carried out including any seasonal or legal implications (e.g. the bird nesting season) and who is responsible; c) Details of method statements for specific biodiversity issues (e.g. for specific destructive activities such as: vegetation clearance, hedgerow removal, tree felling, soil stripping and building demolition); d) Identify all practical measures (e.g. fencing, protective barriers and warning signs) and sensitive working practices to avoid impacts; e) Details of inspections to ensure wildlife do not become trapped in excavations or machinery; f) Details of other responsible person and lines of communication on - site in relation to the implementation of the CEMP; Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 g) Details of contingency measures in the event of an accident or other potentially damaging incident (e.g. pollution incidents; how to deal with previously unrecorded protected species found during construction and restoration; unexpected bad weather; rep air of damaged features etc.); h) Details of procedures to avoid pollution incidents (e.g. from fuel spills and site run - off based on an understanding of the wildlife interest at risk); i) Regular review of the implementation of CEMP throughout the construction / restoration phase to monitor effectiveness of mitigation measures and compliance with legal, planning and/or contractual requirements; j) Details of biosecurity protocols / method statements to prevent spread of non - native species; k) Temporary management of existing wildlife features during construction / implementation. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 14) Prior to occupation, a "lighting design strategy for biodiversity" shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall: a) identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places or along important routes used to access key areas of their territory, for examp le, for foraging; and b) show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent the above species u sing their territory or having access to their breeding sites and resting places. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the strategy, and these shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the strategy. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be ins talled without prior consent from the local planning authority. 15) The development shall be implemented in strict accordance with the agreed reptile mitigation plan (Re ptile Mitigation Strategy, Davidson Watts - Ecology, 12 January 2023). 16) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (reference 332612015, dated January 2025 by Stantec) , Stantec letter dated 7 May 2025, reference Project/File: J:32612015 Boveney Court Farm and the Stantec Technical Note dated March 2026 , including the following mitigation measures: • Finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 21.49 metres above Ordnance Datum (AOD) • Compensatory storage shall be provided as set out in Stantec Drawing 49209/4001/002, Revision C named 'Floodplain Storage Analysis' 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 de velopment. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 17) No works (other than demolition) shall begin until a Flood Risk Management Plan based on the draft submitted with the March 2026 Stantec Technical Note has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the approved Ma nagement Plan. 18) Prior to the commencement of development above ground level a scheme showing details of boundary treatment within the 1% annual exceedance probability plus 35% allowance for climate change floodplain, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The boundary treatment shall be permeable to floodwater. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the scheme's timing/phasing arrangements. 19) No works (other than demolition) shall begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on the Location Plan (drawing no. 1100, rev. I , Phase 1 Ground Condition Assessment prepared by Stantec and dated January 2025 . Flood Risk Assessment (332612015, 07 February 2025, Stantec) , Surface Water Drainage Strategy (332612015/100/DSR, 07 February 2025, Stantec) and Response to LLFA Surface Water Drainage Strategy Comments (332612015/RMF/EE - PL/25/0354/FA, 07 May 2025, Stantec) has been submitted to a nd approved in writing by the local planning authority . The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include: • Assessment of SuDS components as listed in the CIRIA SuDS Manual (C753) and provide justification for exclusion if necessary • Demonstrate that water quality, ecological and amenity benefits have been considered • Water quality assessment demonstrating that the total pollution mitigation index equals or exceeds the pollution hazard index; priority should be given to above ground SuDS components • Undertake the clearance of overgrown vegetation within the second length of ditch to ensure water can flow unimpeded • Discharge from the site should be limited to 4.3l/s • Ground investigations including: • Infiltration in accordance with BRE365 • Groundwater level monitoring over the winter period (from November until April) • Subject to ground investigations demonstrating that infiltration is viable, the applicant shall amend the surface water drainage scheme to dispose of surface water runoff via infiltration • SuDS components agreed within the Proposed Surface Water Drainage Layout (drawing no. 49209/4001/003, rev. B) • Full construction details of all SuDS and drainage components • Detailed drainage layout with pipe numbers, gradients, and pipe sizes complete, together with storage volumes of all SuDS components Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 • Calculations to demonstrate that the proposed drainage system can contain up to the 1 in 30 storm event without flooding. Any onsite flooding between the 1 in 30 and the 1 in 100 plus climate change storm event should be safely contained on site • Details of proposed overland flood flow routes in the event of system exceedance or failure, with demonstration that such flows can be appropriately managed on site without increasing flood risk to occupants, or to adjacent or downstream sites 20) Prior to the occupation of the development a whole - life maintenance plan for the site must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The plan shall set out how and when to maintain the full drainage system (e.g. a maintenance schedule for each drainage/SuDS component), with details of who is to be responsible for carrying out the maintenance. The plan shall also include as as - built dr awings and/or photographic evidence of the drainage scheme carried out by a suitably qualified person. The plan shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 21) Prior to first occupation of the dwellings identified as Units C and D on drawing referenc e 5540 - 1211 - REV - H t he ground floor windows in those dwellings marked as HL on that drawing shall be fitted with obscured glazing in accordance with d etails submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning . O nce installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. End of schedule

⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned

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…

🔗 View on PINS Casework Portal 📋 LPA Ref: PL/25/0355/HB

✓ ALLOWED

Appeal Decision 3375121 (Durham County Council) — 2026-05-29

📍 Durham County Council LPA code: E06000047 PINS reference: 3375121 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision No site visit undertaken by A Edgington BSc (Hons) MA CMLI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 th May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 The Bridge Inn, Whorlton, B arnard Castle DL 12 8XD • 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 Geo A Carter Ltd against the decision of Durham County Council. • The application Ref is DM/24/02793/FPA. • The development proposed is Change of use from public house to 1no. residential dwelling and erection of gate. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for c hange of use from public house to 1no. residential dwelling and erection of gate at The Bridge Inn, B arnard Castle DL12 8XD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DM/24/02793/FPA, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Applications for costs 2. The appellant has made an application for an award of costs. That is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matters 3. The Council’s reasons for refusal refer to Policy 6 f) of the County Durham Plan (CDP) . However, there is no apparent conflict with criterion f) in the officer’s report and the Council’s statement refers to criterion g). I conclude that th ere is a typographical error on the Council’s decision . C onsequently , I have focussed my reasoning on the conflict with CDP Policy 6 g). 4. The Bridge Inn (the Inn) w as nominated as an asset of community value in 2016. This listing expire d after five years and the Inn has not been re - listed. That former designation carries no weight in my reasoning. 5. I agreed with the parties prior to determination of the appeal that a site visit was not necessary . Main Issues 6. The main issue is whether the change of use of the Grade II listed Bridge Inn accords with local policy and national guidance , with particular regard to viability . Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Reasons Background 7. The Inn is a period and listed stone building located in the small rural settlement of Whorlton , a few miles to the south - east of Barnard Castle. The officer report sets out that there have been five different tenants since 2006 , and t he Inn has been closed for business since November 2023 . E ach tenancy has ended early and with the tenants in debt . Moreover, there have been periods of vacancy between each of those tenanc ies . 8. In July 2019 the nearby Whorlton Bridge , which provides the most direct link to the A66 to the south, was closed . At the time the Council expected it to be closed for around a year. In the summer of 2019 , the then te nant had had tenure since 2014, and had explored options such as bed and breakfast (B & B) and varied food offerings. Nonetheless, in September 2019 that tenant stated that the Inn’s takings had dropped by about 50 per cent and that the Inn would close. 9. The tenant attributed the loss of revenue to the closure of the bridge , which remains closed nearly seven years later. However, there are no financial records available to me to support th at assertion . As such I give th e argument that there is direct link between revenue , the termination of the tenancy and the bridge closure , limited weight. There has been another tenant since the bridge closure , but that tenancy lasted only two years . However, as noted above, there has been a history of short tenancies si nce 2006. 10. Shortly after the closure of the bridge, it appears that the appellant applied to convert the Inn ’s annexe to residential use. The reasoning put to the Council included the argument that a reduction in the Inn’s floorspace would reduce overheads and make the Inn a better business proposition . Releas ing capital from residential use would also enable upgrading work to the remaining area s of the I nn, and make the future business more manageable. I see no reason to conclude that the 2019 Viability Report (2019 VR) and its recommendations were not submitted in good faith . 11. The Council gave permission for the conversion, but raised a concern in relation to residential amenity sufficient to impose a condition prohibit ing the residential u se of the first floor of the Inn by anyone other than the tenant or persons involved in the management of the Inn 1 . The annexe has now been sold and is a separate planning unit. Viability 12. CDP Policy 6 g) states that development on unallocated sites will be p ermitted if it does not result in the loss of a settlem ent’s valued facil i ties or ser v ices , unless it has been demonstrated that they are no longer viable. The accompanying text states that to demo nstrate that a facility is not viable, evidence must be provided t h at the premises has been advertised as a going concern at least four times within a six month period and all reasonable offers explored. The evidence will be considered on a case by case basis. Policy W P6 of the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) states that existing amenities will be protected and all aven ues explored for their retention. 1 DM/19/03212/FPA Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 13. Both policies predate the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and in that regard the weight given to those policies shall be commensurate with their consistency with the Framework , in line with Paragraph 232 of that guidance. 14. At application the Council’s Spatial Policy team recommended that the Inn be marketed freehold for a period of three mo n ths to demonstrate that it is no longer viable. It was marketed as a rental property between December 2023 and October 2024, and has been marketed for sale since March 2025. Although there have been a few viewings, none has proceeded further. I see no reason to conclude that the tests for viability set out in CDP Policy 6 g) have not been met . Moreover, the Council’s evidence confirms that the y have. 15. Moreover, the appellant’s evidence includes the assessment s which have informed the valuations , and those figures are not disputed by the Council. In any case, i rrespective of the bridge closure, the tenancy turnover and periods of vacancy before July 2019 suggest that the re were issues with the profitability of the business model well before that date. 16. The Council notes that there has been inconsistency in the appellant’s arguments regarding viability , as the reduction in floorspace, used to support the 2019 application to convert the annexe, now limits further opportunities for diversification. However, although the 2019 Viability Report ( 2019 VR) sets out that there would be three bedrooms available for paying guests, t hat subsequent permission restricts residential use of the Inn ’s first floor for anyone other than the tenant or other manager . The prov ision of visitor accommodation was not a determinative factor in the granting of that permission. 17. Moreover the 2024 Viability Report (2024 VR) identifies issues with security and a lack of separation between potential l ettable rooms and the landlord’s accommodat ion . There are two sets of floor plans in the evidence which are inconsistent with each ot her with regard to room size and proportions. Nonetheless, it is apparent that using any rooms on the first floor for visitors would restrict the tenant’s options for living accommodation . The 2024 VR also s uggests that using the Inn for visitors would result in the tenant having to seek separate accommodation, which would incur additional cost. 18. The 2019 VR states that ‘ the leasehold market continues to reflect the difficulty in identifying tenants who have funding as well as the ability to operate a business, especially one which is in a rural location and food - led . I agree with the appellant that since 2019 there has been a succession of global economic shocks, which could not have been foreseen, and which are likely to have an adverse effect on the hospitality industry to a greater or lesser extent. In any case, even if there has been a failure to pursue other opportunities since 2019, in the absence of any enforcement mechanism, this carries no weight in the determination of th is appeal. 19. Underlying trends are also identified in the 2024 VR which notes an ongoing decrease in wet sales which pre - dates the pandemic, as well as an increasing tendency for small public houses, including the Inn during its last tenanted period , to open on a part - time basis to maintain profitability. 20. The last tenancy, of two years duration, may reflect a harsh economic reality. Although the highway authority notes that around 300 veh icles crossed the bridge daily before it closed, there is nothing before me t o indicate ho w many of those vehicles were carrying customers , or at what times . There is no certainty the Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 bridge’s reopening would support a new business model. In any case, although there is no direct link southwards from Whorlton to the A66, there are other bridges not too far away . I find the weight given by the Council and the community objectors to the bridge closure in relation to the Inn’s viability , to be overstated and unsupported by any evidence . 21. Moreover, the reopening of the bridge , originally scheduled for 2020, has been repeatedly postponed . The appellant is losing rent , has had a listed period building to maintain and has sustained high costs associated with tenancy turnover for the last twenty years . Even if I agreed that the bridge closure is directly responsible for the inability for the Inn to operate as a viable business, i t seems unrealistic to expect any business to weather that kind of loss over such a long period without wishing to pu rsue a new business plan. 22. It is also unrealistic to suggest that the appellant has selected tenants who were not suited to the role and that this might have contributed to the lack of profitability. Tenants are a self - selecting group , and the appellant’s evidence clearly h ighlight s the difficulty of finding suitable candidates in the face of a changing customer base . Moreover, i t seems to me that th e B & B options were never particularly realistic . E ven if the residency condition was removed , the lettable rooms are directly above th e main ground floor rooms of the Inn . Although others might offer suggestions as to what different food offerings might attract visitors, the 2024 VR sets out the extensive range of food offerings and price ranges offered by the last tenant and states that the Inn received very good food reviews. In any case, it is up to the tenant to decide how to manage th e business and bring in sufficient revenue. 23. I appreciate that there is local support for a public house that contributes to village life as an informal drop - in . I also acknowl e dge that the village hall is not a like for like replacement . However, it remains that there is a licensed village hall , available for community events. The Inn is a primarily a business venture , albeit one which also makes a contribution to community life. However, its community function is wholly dependent on its viability. Whorlton Community Benefit Society 24. A local community group, the Whorlton Community Benefit Society (WCBS) explored purchasing or leasing the Inn and commissioned a surveyors’ report 2 in that regard. The valuation in June 2025 was £230,000, considerably less than the current price on the open market. 25. This report sets out marketing and turnover data for public houses in North Yorkshire which vary wildly in location, proximity to trunk roads, floor area and turnover. It is unclear what conclusions I am expected to reach from this information . Moreover, the report states that the Inn remains on the ACV listing , which is incorrect . 26. There are nonetheless two comparable situation s set out in this report . One is the marketing for the All Fours in nearby Ovington. Its floor area is smaller than the Inn, and it opens on a part - time basis. Nonetheless, this is being marketed at a freehold price of £295,000. T he report states that the Inn would be able to increase turnover to double that of the All Fours. However, the Inn was also opening on a part - time basis when last tenanted, as a means of reducing costs. Given the marketing price 2 Fleurets, June 2025 Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 of £295,000 for the All Fours, it is unclear to me why the Inn is valued at only £230,000 in this report. 27. This report also sets out marketing details for The Bridgewater Arms at Winston, which is another village close to the River Tees and located between the A67 and the A66 trunk roads. This has a little more floor area than the Inn but has sold for £390,000. I agree with the appellant that these public houses are comparably located to the Inn , and likely to attract a similar customer base. There is a broad consistency in the price per square foot . A pplying that price per square foot to the Inn , results in a figure broadly similar to the price at which the Inn has been marketed by the appellant since 2025. As such I conclude that the price of £230,000 for purchase , or a concomitant rental price, would not reflect market value. Consequently , the WCBS’s arguments that the Inn is being marketed at an unrealistically high price , carry no weight in my reasoning. Conclusion – Financial Viability 28. I conclude that the re were issues with profitability l ong before the closure of the bridge or the conversion of the annexe. The proposed conversion accords with local policy and national guidance and consequently there is no conflict with CDP Policy 6 g) or WP6 with regard to the tests for viability and potential diversification options . I appreciate that Paragraphs 88d) , and 98 c) and d) of the Framework are concerned with the safeguarding of community facilities , but this is secondary to viability and in this case the required tests have been met. In any case, the policies cited are slightly more restrictive than the Framework with regard to the safeguarding of community facilities. Even had I found a degree of conflict with the local development plan , I would have given those policies less than full weight. H eritage 29. The Inn dates from the early 19 th century and is a handsome if somewhat pla in two - storey sandstone building , with a flat elevation and multi - paned sash windows , located in a prominent position on the main road through the village . Its significance arises from its intact historic fabric which is typical of period buildings in this rural area , and its social and communal value as a public house in a rural community. 30. The development would include internal works which have been granted listed building consent. Externally, the Council has raised a concern in relation to a proposed gate and section of wall , but has concluded that t hese concerns could be addressed through conditions. I see no reason to disagree. 31. The village is a collection of stone and largely period buildings set back from the road and arranged around a large village green. The Inn makes a highly positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area , and this would be unaffected in the event that the appeal is allowed. 32. The Inn is listed as such on the Historic England website . I acknowledge that there would be some minor loss of significance to the listed building and conservation area , with regard to its social and communal value . This amounts to less than substantial harm, at the lower end of the spectrum. However, without a viable use the building will deteriorate . Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm, th at harm should be weighed against the pub lic benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 securing its optimum viable use. In this case , I conclude that the Inn’s optimum viable use is as a dwelling. 33. As such, the benefits arising from an ongoing viable use and the provision of a dwelling, as well as the ongoing maintenance of a listed building outweigh the reduction of significance and the loss of the Inn’s former community function. The minor conflict with S ections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 would be outweighed by public benefits. Other Matters 34. The Council has h ighted an appeal relating to The Pheasant Inn, Shropshire 3 where the Ins pector found that the owners had not made sufficient effort to explore diversification options. However , that appeal is of some age, the premises had a far greater floor area with more opportunities for diversification, and it is also in a different part of the country . The appeal was determined within a very different economic and legislative framework . As such it is not comparable to what is before me . Moreover, there is no evidence provided to support the Council’s assertion that it is still thriving as a business. 35. Interested parties have raised concerns that previous tenants were insufficiently vetted before being given the tenancy, or were in some way uns uitable . However, i t is unrealistic and unreasonable to pose hypothetical situation s in which other tenants might have made more of a success of running the Inn. I have no information with regard to the appellant’s personal or business circumstances but it is also unreasonable to suggest that they take over the running of the Inn directly . In any case , it seems highly u nlikely that tenants would not explore al l options for a higher turnover rather than lose their investment and the tena ncy . 36. The WCBS also sets out that the single two year tenancy since the bridge closure is insufficient time to trial diversification. However , this seems a reasonable period to me , particularly as the 2024 VR sets out that the tenancy benefited from significantly discounted rent . I acknowledge that there may be community owned public ho uses elsewhere . However, no examples are provided and in any case , there is no unused space at the Inn to dedicate to shops , social clubs or post offices. Moreover , the village has a village hall. Nor has the WCBS set out any detail of its own business model or information to support its contention that another landlord would find the operating profit acceptable. 37. The WCBS sets out that the appellant was obstructive to their attempts to pursue due diligence. I am unable to conclude either way in this regard , but it remains that the underlying dispute with the WCBS is based on the appellant’s valuation , and in this case , I am satisfied that that is reasonable. Whilst I acknowledge that the group has made a considerable effort to retain the Inn as a community facility, I do not find the appellant’ s valuations, or efforts to find a solution with the group , unreasonable. 38. My attention has also been drawn to an unsuccessful appeal for change of use at the Dog and Gun Inn, Auton Stile 4 . This was a retrospective application for a change of use from a public house to workspace and bar/restaurant/café/retail use. The appeal decision notes that it was in an accessible location with public transport 3 APP/L3245/A/13/2192177 4 APP/X1355/W/25/3359018 Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 links and nearby shops, which suggests a very different locational context from what is before me. The premises was also operational. The appeal is not comparable to what is before me. 39. A great deal of weight has been given to the contention that when the bridge opens the Inn would be accessible to a far greater customer base and that this would radically change the Inn’s profitability . However , there are other bridges linking the A66 and the A67 , and the diversion required over the Tees does not seem too extensive to me. Moreover, some of the people who signed the petition appear to live in Barnard Castle or other villages, and would not be particularly affected by the bridge closure. I a ccept that there may be a loss of casual passing trade , but this has not been quantified . A large proportion of the vehicles crossing the bridge before closure are likely to be commuters and normal business journeys. 40. I appreciate that there is strong feeling locally r egarding the loss of the Inn as a public house. The argument is advanced that the valuations provided are too high, and that with a different operating model and lower rents, the Inn would be viable. However, on the basis of what is before me I am unable to agree. The Inn can only provide a community facility if it is a viable business. I am satisfied that that is no longer the case. Conditions 41. The Council has suggested conditions and where appropriate I have amended the text in line with best practice . I have imposed the standard time and drawings condition for the avoidance of doubt. Conditions are also imposed to ensure the proposed gate and a new section of stone wall are in keeping with the period property to safeguard the setting of the listed building , and the character and appearance of the conservation area. 42. The Council has suggested that the condition relating to the timber gate include the text ‘rece ived 24.10.2024’. I have two existing and proposed side elevation drawings before me, one titled superseded , and one which is annotated . There is nothing before me to indicate which was received on 24 October 2024. However, I have indicated in the condition that the approved drawing is annotated. 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 INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years after the date of this permission. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried ou t in accordance with the following plans: Site Location Plan Existing and Prop osed Block Plan Existing and Pr op o sed Floor Plan Existing and Proposed Front Elevations Existing and Prop os ed Rear Elevation Existing and Proposed Side Elevation , ( with annotations identifying the existing and proposed gates and wall). 3. The proposed gate sh all in materials , dimensions and overall design, replicate the ‘ e xisting 5 bar timber gate ’ shown on the drawing Existing and Proposed Side Elevation . 4. The e xtended stone wall shall be formed using coursed random size natural stone with pointing to match the existing. N o development of the extension of the stone wall shall commence until a sample panel of the propos ed stone and pointing to be used in its cons truction has been erected on site and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved sam ple panel shall thereafter be retained for reference on site through out its construction and the develop ment shall be constructed in accordance w ith the approved sample panel.

⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned

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

🔗 View on PINS Casework Portal 📋 LPA Ref: DM/24/02793/FPA

✓ ALLOWED

Appeal Decision 3373696 (South Oxfordshire District Council) — 2026-05-29

📍 South Oxfordshire District Council LPA code: E07000179 PINS reference: 3373696 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision s Inquiry Held on 31 March, 1 - 2 April , 8 - 9 April 2026 , closing in writing 7 May 2026 Site visit made on 2 April 2026 by M Shrigley BSc (Hons) MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 th Ma y 2026 Appeal A : APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696 Thames Farm , Reading Road , Lower Shiplake RG9 3PH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant p lanning permission . • The appeal is made b y Taylor Wimpey West London against the decision of South Oxfordshire District Council . • The application Ref P 24/S2642/FUL , dated 16 August 2024 , was refused by notice dated 16 July 2025 . • The development proposed is for engineering operations associated with ground stabilisation works . Appeal B : APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 Thames Farm , Reading Road , Lower Shiplake RG9 3PH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted . • The appeal is made by Taylor Wimpey W est London against the decision of South Oxfordshire District C ouncil. • The application Ref P24/S2652/S73 , dated 16 August 2024 , was refused by notice dated 18 July 2025 . • A pplication Ref P24/S2652/S73 sought variation of conditions 1 and 3 on application P19/S0245/RM (Reserved Matters for 95 dwellings (appearance, landscaping, scale and layout) pursuant to outline application P16/S0970/O) (as amended by plans and information received 9 January 2025, 17 February 2025, 14 March 2025 and 9 May 2025) . • The conditions in dispute ( conditions 1 and 3 ) state : (1) That the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans . (3) T he landscaping scheme as shown on the approved plans shall be implemented in accordance with Landscape Management Plan CSA/4049/01 and thereafter be maintained in accordance with this Plan. In the event of any of the trees or shrubs so planted dying or being seriously damaged or destroyed within 5 years of the completion of the development, a new tree or shrub or equivalent number of trees or shrubs, as the case may be, of a species first approved by the Local Planning Authority, shall be planted and properly maintained in a position or positions first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. • The reasons given for the conditions are: (1) To secure proper planning of the area in accordance with Development Plan policies . (3) To help to assimilate the development into its surroundings in accordance with Policies CSEN1 and CSQ3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2027 and Policies G2, C9 and D1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 - 2035 . Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Appeal C : APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 Thames Farm , Reading Road , Lower Shiplake RG9 3PH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the refusal to grant consent subject to the conditions of consent , agreement or approval of details required by conditions of a planning permission . • The appeal is made by Taylor Wimpey West London against the decision of South Oxfordshire District Council. • The application r ef erence P24/S2651/DIS , dated 19 August 2024 , was refused by notice dated 18 July 2025. It sought approval of details pursuant to conditions 4 , 5, 8, 9 and 11 attached to planning permission P16/S0970/O . • The development proposed is for outline planning permission for up to 95 dwellings and associated public open space and landscaping. With means of access and strategic landscaping not reserved ( allowed at appeal 2 August 2017 as per appeal reference APP/Q3115/X/23/3325922) . • The condition in dispute is No. 11 which states that: No further development shall commence, beyond the access works already implemented, until a drainage strategy, detailing all on and off - site surface and foul drainage works, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall occur before the drainage strategy has been completed and brought into use. • The reasons given for applying the condition are to ensure the proper provision of surface water and foul water drainage and to ensure flooding and pollution is not exacerbated in the locality in accordance with policy EP4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 - 2035. Decision s 1. Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for engineering operations associated with ground stabilisation works in accordance with the terms of the application, r ef erence P24/S2642/FUL , dated 16 August 2024 , subject to the ‘Schedule of C onditions ’ set out at the end of this decision . 2. Appeal B is allowed and permission is granted for the variation of conditions 1 and 3 on application P19/S0245/RM (Reserved Matters for 95 dwellings (appearance, landscaping, scale and layout) pursuant to outline application P16/S0970/O) (as amended by plans and information received 9 January 2025, 17 February 2025, 14 March 2025 and 9 May 2025) in accordance with the terms of the application, reference P24/S2652/S73, dated 16 August 2024 , subject to the ‘Schedule of Conditions’ set out at the end of this decision. 3. Appeal C is allowed and condition discharge is granted in accordance with the terms of the application, reference P24/S2651/DIS , dated 19 August 2024 . Procedural Matters 4. The i nquiry concern s three linked appeals A, B and C , as described in the banner . South Oxfordshire District Council ( SODC ) agree that Appeal B is dependent on the outcome of both Appeal A and Appeal C, and that Appeal C is dependent on Appeal A. It therefore is necessary to assess some of the considerations arising in Appeal’s A and C first. 5. Based on the collective main issues and technical matters aired, which overlap, it is also appropriate to deal with all three appeal s together rather than as separate decision letters. Accounting for each of the individual Decision Notice grounds contested , I have further consolidated the agreed main issues to avoid unnecessary duplication in my reasoning. Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 6. I acknowledge t he planning application to amend the approved layout (P24/S2652/S73) if successful under Appeal B reduces the number of dwellings proposed from 95, which was the number approved under reserved matters, to 84 dwellings. The reduction is proposed by the appellant to accommodate a drainage basin, as part of its overall drainage strategy. 7. It is also pertinent to mention, i n May 2020 SODC approved a non - material amendment (P20/S0134/NM) to planning permission P16/S0970/O. This altered the wording of c ondition 11 so that it allowed for the provision of a vehicular access to the site prior to the submission and approval of the drainage strategy. 8. Although application P24/S2651/DIS sought acceptability of details for discharge of: c ondition 4 for vehicular accesses, footways, cycle ways, driveways and turning areas; c ondition 5 for construction management; c ondition 8 for landscape management; Condition 9 for a bat method statement; and c ondition 11 for a drainage strategy . Only c ondition 11 detail adequacy is dispute d by the main appeal parties. 9. Without prejudice to the outcome of the appeal s , it was agreed during proceedings that the appellant would be given until 2 4 April 2026 to produce a completed d eed of v ariation related to its overall case . A completed deed was subsequently received slightly beyond that timefram e ( 1 May) . However, it is legally binding and therefore informs my decision. Main Issue s 10. The main issue s relate to the following : • W hether it is sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed development would not pose unacceptable risk s to a local principal aquifer and public water abstraction having regard to stabilisation works , ground stability, pollution, drainage and flood ing (Appeal ’s A and B ) . • The acceptability of drainage strategy details for the discharge of c ondition 11 (Appeal C). • Deed of variation adequacy to secure associated affordable housing , infrastructure and mitigation (Appeal B) . Reasons Risk s to principal aquifer /public water abstraction from : (i) stabilisation works 11. During my site visit I could see the appeal land was predominantly an open grassed over field accessed from Reading Road, close to existing dwellings in the wider vicinity. 12. It is common ground the site falls within groundwater S ource P rotection Z one 1 (SPZ 1 ) of an underlying aquifer used for public water supply abstraction . I also note the site is within a Drinking Water Safeguard Zone for groundwater and surface water. The purpose of the la t ter designation by the E nvironment A gency (EA) is to protect raw water resources from further deterioration by pollution and to reduce the need for extra treatment by water companies. 13. Groundwater in SPZ1 (as the inner zone of the three main water protection zones) is most vulnerable to pollution given the proximity of the abstraction Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 point and the water’s intended use for human consumption. It is defined within the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 as one of the following: a) the area within 50 metres of a point where the groundwater is abstracted for domestic supply or food production purposes; b) the area where it t akes groundwater that is intended to be used to supply water for domestic or food production purposes up to 50 days to travel to the groundwater abstraction point. 14. G roundwater beneath the appeal site travels to the Harpsden Public Water Supply (PWS), approximately 130 metres or so away. From that point onwards abstracted water is treated using filtration and chlorination processes . Water then enters the domestic use supply system . 15. Unstable ground within the site boundary is underlain by the principal aquifer within the SPZ. SODC and Thames Farm Action Group (TFAG) as the Rule 6 Party both underscore the imperative of properly managing local water supply resources given water pathways with in the site boundary . Harpsden PWS contributing over one third of the potable supply for the Water Resource Zone. 16. SODC and TFAG combined contend it is not sufficiently demonstrated the engineering works tied to Appeal A could occur without posing unacceptable risks to the principal aquifer and to public water abstraction at Harpsden PWS. 17. The overarching contentions made by them is that the Hydrogeological Impact Assessment (HIA) does not provide sufficient information to properly gauge risk. Tied to that claim is that there is deficient information on: groundwater levels; the extent, number, and depth of solution features ; the nature of the hydraulic gradients between the site and the PWS; and the presence of any fast flow pathways. 18. The appellant’s HIA assessment is also subject to a long list of technical criticisms including but not limited to: an underestimation of potential for preferential pathways; downplayed potential for unaddressed void presence; solution pipes with superficial deposits are unpredictable; solutio n pipes can/do sometimes extend below the water table which the site is likely to contain; and that the aquifer itself is not identified as a receptor, based on the source, pathway, and receptor model. 19. Furthermore, it is alleged: chalk fracture width is underestimated as per the core recovery material in boreholes HF4 and HF5 ; related depth of grouting considerations required downplay hydrological connectivity between structured and unstructured chalk; that flow rates would be assisted by fractures and networks linked to voids; a nd that a detailed quantitative risk assessment should be undertaken for the proposed ground stabilisation works in view of these considerations . 20. With all those contentions in mind, I acknowledge t he u nderlying geological composition of the appeal site largely comprise s of superficial deposits of sand, gravel, clay and silt in different proportions, upper weathered chalk and then moderately weathered chalk. 21. Ground condition investigations reflect regional karstic features of : voids; deep solution features; and fracturing. The investigations imply there could well be rapid flow of groundwater and potential contaminants above and below the water table. Based on the evidence I cannot discount that situation completely. Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 22. The appeal technical evidence and arguments focu s on the presence of structure d and unstructured chalk deposits within the site . Th is is because the properties of chalk layers in the ground has led to solution pipe formation over time. The ground is consequently less stable because of these naturally occurring geological formations , particularly at the eastern side of the site . 23. S olution pipes are characterised to extend into structured chalk at roughly around 15 metres below ground level. Acknowledging some contain permeable superficial deposit material within them and may be hydrologically active or others being potentially waterfilled or air filled voids 1 . 24. TFAG broadly argue unstructured chalk layers present in the ground are characterised by high porosity . Fractures or discontinuities are recorded within those layers according to the appellant’s January 2023 borehole log investigations 2 . Whereas t he appellant’s expert witness ’s analysis is that structured chalk may have become putt ylike when mixed with clay and other substrate s over time limiting its permeability and potential for complete recovery in the cores . A s an explanation of the borehole log information recorded . 25. T he appellant’s evidence is credible that a naturally occurring meniscus crust forms a barrier within the solution pipes restricting permeability . A nd that some of the results could be affected by instances of no recovery in the sample cores obtained. Those circumstances offer me plausible explanations of why the borehole information in dispute is interpretated differently by the appellant. 26. Additionally, t he appeal evidence suggests that unstructured and structured chalk could be found together, and that fragments of the structured chalk could be found within the unstructured chalk. 27. In that context, I accept that t he Drill and Grouting Plan presented by the appellant is not intended to be a precise grouting proposal. That is b ecause it is not possible to conclude all solution features have been identified . And because the appellant would also deliberately be using real - time feedback from the construction operators involved in the drilling and grouting processes to further refine grouting placement s . The latter being a chieved v ia active monitoring of injection pressure and grout volumes extruded into the ground giving physical indication whether a f eature is stabilised or not . 28. Nevertheless, from a risk perspective the Drill and Grouting Plan still offers a reasonable planning and decision making basis to work from . It is underpinned by a reasonably robust technical assessment allowing for interpretation expertise . Even if there was more prior investigatory technical information aligned with SODC ’s and TFAG ’s contentions, operators would still need to respond to real time grout injection feedbac k when undertaking the work. 29. As part of examining the existing hydrogeological conditions, I note that E.Coli and other total coliform bacteria were consistently found across the site during September to November 2025 3 at boreholes MW1 - 5 and HF2. With concentrations highest at HF2 at the western boundary of the site heading towards existing residential properties. 1 Geotechnical Investigation 4072D/19 (Terramech) , Appendix C : Borehole logs Z1 – Z10 . 2 Hydrogeological Impact Assessment for ground stabilisation works, ( H Fraser Consulting , 2024 ) Appendix C . Borehole references: HF2 ; HF3 & HF5 . 3 Appellant’s Analytical Reports by Analytical i2 Environmental Science Ltd . Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 30. This does imply routes in groundwater could be affected by surface and subsurface contamination via rapid flow through superficial deposits. Septic tank leakage is highlighted as the likely primary contaminant source. That said, I am equally cognisant a variety of wildlife in the area are also potentially capable of spread ing such coliform s . For instance , at my site visit I witnessed two deer moving around within the boundary and there is likely to be other fauna in the localit y . Thus, I do not rule out the possibility of other wider traceable sources above septic tank leakage . 31. Importantly, I note that compaction grouting is not a novel construction technique given it has been used in the UK since the 1980’s. As depicted by the appellant’s experts t he compaction grouting process described involves drilling boreholes , then injecting a stiff mortar grout, containing coarse sand and limestone dust. This process produces an expanding bulb, compressing the surrounding ground. 32. The evidence before me implies injected grout would not flow , i t would be extruded under pressure emerg ing as a solid like mass. S etting begins from the moment it is mixed and it achieves full curing within approximately two hours. Injection would be targeted into unstructured chalk, with a 2 metre stand - off above the measured water table monitored daily, with no pulverised fuel ash, and a 50 metre exclusion zone around the PWS. 33. I recognise the EA’s approach to groundwater protection involves the application of the precautionary principle. I also agree relative to joint EA/Defra guidance it is the responsibility o f a developer to provide an adequate conceptual model for a risk assessment . In addition to any other relevant information for its engineering works to be suitab ly gauged. 34. Similarly, I also realise seeking more baseline data within the initial assessments can sometimes be an essential requirement. Nonetheless, insights which can be obtained from practical understanding, experience, and applied professional expertise are also applicable as ingredients informing the appellant’s overall approach. In this case professional judgment has been applied alongside the limitations in the baseline data available. 35. In such circumstances linked to the dispute , the practical application of engineering solutions devised to treat ground conditions cannot be determined by report data alone. At some junctures there must be some interpretation and inferences applied. In the main this falls at the interface of independent experts and eventual contractors undertaking stabilisation works informed by initial investigation and known risks. Accepting other anomalies c ould occur. 36. Thus overall, there would never be absolute certainty on ground conditions. The appellant on the whole evidences a structured engineering process and active solutions to treat unstable ground . 37. Based on all the evidence the grouting process would not be haphazard. I have no strong reasons to believe competent contractors would not be able to undertake the engineering works safely or correctly , ensuring adequate protections. 38. S crutiny of the appellant’s approaches during the inquiry itself further focuses and brings attention to any possible weaknesses in the proposed engineering steps to be taken. SODC conceded that a suitable future monitoring scheme Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 could establish the ground water levels when grouting would be undertaken. SODC ’s criticisms nevertheless remain that adequate ground level water information is still warranted in the HIA. 39. That said, additional information is contained in the appellant’s hydrogeological witness statements referring to December 2025 and January 2026 as well as some off - site Thames Water data in the wider evidence. Although SODC still point to shortfalls from inter - seasonal or inter - annual variation the additional data gives me some further reassurance that the appellant’s initial assessments are reasonabl y robust . 40. With respect to ground investigation work, the appellant has limited its intrusive investigations to isolated boreholes and dynamic probe testing within the zones of the potential features using a 6 metre grid system. 41. Allowing for suggested limitations in the dynamic probe evidence, the criticisms of 6 metre grid spacing utilised instead of 3 metre spacing are material. I accept there may be undetected voids present in the ground. But there would be ample scope for the appellant to safely rectify that situation using the compaction grouting techniques they have described. 42. The matter undoubtably is a risk but I am not persuaded it carries an unacceptable level of risk. Even with 3 metre spacing , the risk of undetected features would still not vanish. The appellant otherwise gives credible evidence of how grout compaction techniques would sufficiently stabilise the ground. More grout stabilisation could be undertaken if it proved necessary during groundworks, when pressure and grout extr u sion monitoring feedback would be known by the drilling and injection point operator. 43. There is no dispute about the presence of open fractures and fissures in the structured chalk. Albeit t he parties disagree whether the properties of unstructured chalk can support pathways allowing the passage of grout. 44. The precautionary 2 metre stand - off above groundwater levels prior to grout injection would provide some safeguard . Even so, I acknowledge that some of the solution features present penetrate below the water table for drilling into the structured chalk. This does give rise to sub - vertical and sub - horizontal pathway risks as well as risks through the presence of other potential v oids in the ground. 45. Yet, the appellant supported by the slump tests it evidences indicates that grout injected into the ground would set within two hours. As a result, there would be no reasonable prospect of transmission into the PWS. Even when conceding there are potential additional pathway risks including fast flow pathways in accordance with SODC and TFAG’s cases, the distances involved relative to the setting time are the most crucial factors. Furthermore, no other stabilisation process is considered a realistic practica l alternative to grouting. 46. I find t he distances evident coupled with the anticipated stiffness/thickness of the grout prior to its setting gives a credible explanation why it would be highly improbable, if not impossible , for the grouting works defined within Appeal A to harm the PWS. Thus, the overall risk level from grouting processes on the aquifer and abstraction would be acceptable. Nevertheless, other overlapping factors also warrant consideration . (ii) Adequacy of drainage strategy detail s Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 47. At the time when the outline planning permission (P16/S0970/O) was approved, and the reserved matters consent (P19/S0245/RM) was granted, SODC had no indication that the ground conditions were such that stabilisation works would be required to implement the permitted housing development . 48. The proposed updated drainage strategy would utilise two detention basins to the east of the site, alongside Reading Road. These were granted under the reserved matters consent. Water would then be pumped from the eastern detention basins to a proposed new primary detention/infiltration basin to the west , replacing 11 permitted homes. A pumping station would be required due to the existing topography, as the new western basin is on the highest part of the site. 49. A surface water pumping station would be located near to the allotments towards the northern boundary . It is designed to meet adoptable standards, which requires the provision of two pumps, in the event of failure. Although t he likelihood of both failing at the same time is slim , it is possible . F or example, electrical failure could lead to this situation . In such circumstances, significant surface water storage would be available within the drainage network allowing repairs or alternative power provision t o be made. 50. Fundamentally, when assessing the appellant’s drainage strategy SODC and TFAG provide combined reasons against the principle of a layout using a pumped surface water drainage system . I ncluding allowing for water discharge from Reading Road , on sustainability grounds. 51. In particular , TFAG contend a gravity based system is both possible and preferable as well as supporting a less intensive form of layout. In their view such changes would alleviate the strain on the appellant to seek to rely upon over complicated engineering solutions. I agree a less dense housing scheme would allow greater latitude in the layout and /or utilisation of a gravity system ( if feasible ) would further minimise some risks. 52. That said, a decision is still required based on the collective information before the i nquiry relative to all alleged risks alongside what has already been previously permitted. 53. The appellant takes the position that pumped storage is the most suitable option for its layout in trying to meet SODC’s overall reasons for refusal linked to a ppeals A, B and C. There is nothing compelling to show that a gravity system would be effective for the number of homes the appellant is purs u ing . O therwise, it is likely owing to ease they would already have pursued this alternative option . 54. The Court of Appeal Glidewell LJ 4 case q uoted in the evidence sheds further light on the dispute s in that it identifies the overarching legal principle that a Planning Authority cannot refuse the best option achievable. As to do so could amount to a revocation of planning permission in the context of what has already been formally permitted. 55. The fact that the proposed drainage strategy involves adoption requirements through a New Appointments Variation (NAV) or statutory undertaker is an extremely important added complication. TFAG and SODC making the 4 Medina Borough Council vs Proberun Ltd ; Court of Appeal ( Glidewell, Stuart - Smith L.JJ. and Sir David Croom - Johnson): May 15, 1990 Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 combined proposition there is no realistic chance of adoption from a NAV or Thames Water as the statutory undertaker. 56. Affiliated risks also arise in that it is not possible to conclude that all solution features have been identified, particularly within the western detention basin and infiltration b l anket area. Subsequently, I have factored risks regarding: solution features remaining untreated; solution features not be ing completely grouted if they continue to depths below the groundwater table; and risks grout could be injected into a void extending into the water table itself. 57. Moreover , SODC raise: the stability of embankments should not be left to post condition discharge consent; that the basin may be undersized; the potential for overtopping relative to a 300mm freeboard; the lack of emergency storage and spacing around pipes for mai ntenance and lined permeable road paving on top of a rising main drain; inadequate soakaway tests as all being factors for a NAV to reject adoption of infiltration features. 58. I also note the maximum water levels of the western detention basin would sit around 4 metres above the floor levels of adjacent dwellings in the event of failure. 59. But even when considering all those additional points raised , the overall resultant flood and pollution risks are still likely to be low. Due maintenance regimes can be secured. Plus, the appellant suggested during the i nquiry there would be practical flexibility to achieve increased freeboard requirements in the eventual detailed drainage design. There being scope for a 400 - 600mm (or at least 500mm) freeboard aligned with SuDS Manual advice exceeding t he 300mm currently suggested, with a 1 in a 1000 year storm event and possible overtopping in mind. 60. In addition, there are notable historic flooding incidents documented over a ten year period on Reading Road. Even without new housing, I am aware the existing soakaways built under Section 278 (s278) of the Highways Act 1980 provision s may either not be effective or require maintenance. Even so, the Highway Authority has powers to further assess and assist this matter including potentia l l y bolstering maintenance regimes if it needed to further protect the residents it serves, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal s . 61. Whilst NAV adoption may be difficult to obtain, I cannot conclude it would be impossible. It is a separate formal process where there is scope to make detailed design adjustment. And , the previous granting of outline permission for a maximum quantum of housing is also material. 62. That is because it is for the appellant to find and pursue the most effective solutions to the technical constraints it faces for the maximum number of houses it can practically achieve, supported by evidence . The maximum figure already being lowered in its intended revised layout with all public and statutory concerns accounted for in mind. 63. Consequently, bringing all relevant technical points together I find the criticisms to the details provided to meet condition 11 concerning Appeal C do not raise insurmountable issues that are incapable of being overcome . Nonetheless, g iven the intersecting appeal case arguments present further impacts should be addressed before reaching any overall findings . (iii) Other linked drainage/flooding, ground stability and pollution risk s Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 64. Alongside the submitted drainage strategy, t he p lanning application reference P24/S2652/S73 appealed seeks to amend the approved layout to accommodate the drainage features necessitated by the ground stabilisation works, resulting in a reduction from 95 to 84 dwellings, with upgraded house types and a new SuDS drainage basin in the south - western corner o f the site. 65. TFAG contend : the appellant’s detailed risk assessment does not recognise the potential for solution features and vulnerabilities as indicated by dynamic probe readings ( AO12, AN13, AN14, AO14 and AP14 ) beneath the planned western detention basin; the risk assessment only considers the PWS, using the chalk aquifer for the purposes of dilution and attention of contaminants; the detention basin sits above unstructured chalk and must provide adequate permea bility to allow recharge of the aquifer; potential inc reased turbidity from grouting processes transferring pollutants; and increased alkalinity from using ordinary Portland Cement and uncertainty of any additive use. 66. Additionally, t here are material on and off site flood risks attached to potential failure of the proposed detention basin design. Plus, t he design of the proposed temporary bunds featuring in the construction phases are alleged by SODC and the R ule 6 Pa r ty to not adequately address what the risks are during a severe weather event . I have considered all such criticisms in my overall findings. 67. In terms of drainage / flood and pollution risk matters arising from the engineering works in Appeal A and in the varied layout for Appeal B . The appellant’s analysis suggests there are some solution features within the footprint of the detention basin and supporting bunds. SODC and TFAG share concerns that these pose a ground destabilisation and subsequent flood risk if left untreated. 68. However, I have no strong reason to believe the appellant ’ s approach would not be able to be successful given the depths involved relative to the drainage system , infiltration rates and expected containment bund height . Planning conditions would provide further reassurances. A side to that, a ny additional solution features would also be able to be suitably treated if they were needed to be . I nclusive of the appellant obtaining any further necessary consents. 69. The appellant as part of its proposed temporary surface water drainage strategy , utili sing containment bunds , anticipates the use of a ‘silt buster’ to mi ni mise sediment in site surface water. Although some unwanted residual sediment may be transported , t h e process would provide adequate control as the stabilisation works progress ed . 70. T he south eastern corner of the site has some vulnerability for a 1 in 100 year storm event . Which would affect Reading Road should the temporary bund s fail . Nevertheless, that vulnerability would only be within a limited timeframe whilst the stabilisation works would be completed . 71. I recognise a variety of factors such as seasonality/rainfall , groundwater level variability and pumping periods at the PWS are further variables during construction works . But these considerations would be able to be managed through daily monitoring in the construction process es . 72. In other drainage respects also linked to the layout sought in Appeal B and linked to Appeal’s A and C . F alling head tests and permeability rate information provided by the appellant underpinning the size of the basin and infiltration Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 blanket give me further insights and assurances its approach would be able to be successful . 73. There may be some technical shortfalls in the drainage details provided . However, there is due flexibility to furt her adapt the d rainage d esign in relation to overcoming min im um freeboard requirements and any notional basin under sizing risk , a longside Defra’s national requirements for S u D S through working amendment . Accepting, t he detention basin would have a water level considerably above the nearest properties. 74. In the event of bund failure , more water would discharge onto Reading Road and the properties to the east of Reading Road. Nonetheless, I find that residual flood risk s would be able to be successfully managed to an acceptable level through the imposition of suitably worded planning conditions aligned with SODC officer recommendations . 75. As to the scope to utilise a Source Protection Strategy (SPS) planning condition . Important nuances arise in that t he EA suggests such a condition would be to ensure the proposed development does not harm the water environment. Whereas Thames Water ’s suggested wording focuses on not harming the water abstraction source. 76. I concur that the suggested SPS condition wording subject to the main appeal party dispute may not be able to discount any harm whatsoever to water resources . It would however facilitate proportionate monitoring and remedial action should any be required. Consequently, it would still be beneficial. Connected to that issue , the appellant’s water contamination model is highly conservative in multiple respects and shows negligible risk from contaminants . This strengthens the basis of favouring the appellant’s approach es . 77. Other criticisms cite assessment has not accounted for the risk associated with failure of water management systems, including structural failure of sewage pipes leading to the migration of contaminants . Yet, p recautions such as flexible couplings and high - specification pipework c ould readily be incorporated in the detailed design phase, in accordance with the EA 's recommendations for sewage infrastructure in SPZ1 . Besides , I note there is existing development much closer to SPZ1 which ha s not been rejected on such speculative grounds. 78. The EA’s approach to groundwater protection is material. Development works in Appeal A and Appeal B could potentially require an environmental permit, even though the appellant does not envisage this to be the case. Consequently, I have approached this mat ter cautiously when considering the scope of the main parties suggested planning condition wordings. 79. In accepting there is a gap between statutory consultee response intention s for condition use application, it is necessary for me to bring all points together relative to the risks involved. I find there would be no realistic prospect of grout reaching the aquifer and thus the risk level is acceptable . But a n appropriately worded planning condition would assist with due monitoring and any remedial action on a precautionary basis if the grouting process proved problematic . E ven if highly improbable. However improbable the likelihood, a belt and braces precautionary approach is warranted . 80. The chemical structure , of the grout pre and post setting utilising o r dinary c ement rather than s ulphate r esisting was clarified by the appellant . On top of Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 the wider appeal evidence referring to the mix more broadly as contain ing water, sand, cement and bentonite. Accordingly, a satisfactory impact to water pH levels would be possible and highly probable from the grouts composition . The overall setting time and stiffness of the mixed grout are adequate reasons not to attribute harm from potential additive use , of which none is envisaged in the appellant’s submissions . 81. SOD C also raise issues with the design and location of the detention basin. Especially outfall ; key feature sizing; self - cleansing capacity and its long - term maintenance. Nonetheless, I am satisfied the appellant has planned adequately for its drainage s ystems to be successful. The re is scope to overcome some residual criticisms alongside recognition of s104 of the Water Industry Act 1991 and the processes expected to achieve drainage system adoption . To assume there would be no possibility of adoption would be overly restrictive . 82. Strikingly, SODC do not claim actual harm to the PWS or the c halk aquifer. Both the EA and Thames Water are satisfied that a SPS secured by planning condition is an appropriate and effective safeguard. The EA in applying its groundwater protection policies has concluded that the risks are acceptable. Although such views are not binding, I find there is no compelling basis to disagree with their conclusions . 83. Overall, a llowing for planning condition use, I find that collective stabilisation, ground stability, pollution, drainage and flood risk impacts for Appeal A would be able to be managed to an acceptable level . South Oxford shire Local Plan 2011 - 2035 (SOLP) Polic ies ENV12 and DES7 a s well as Joint Henley and Harp sden Neighbourhood Plan 2020 - 2035 ( J HHNP) Policy E NV5 would be complied with . C ombined those policies aim to prevent harm to human health, the natural environment and neighbouring uses . A s well as ensuring new development ha s appropriate regard to geology and drainage capacity given the chalk present in the area. 84. I n tandem , when assessing all overall risks tied to Appeal C relative to Appeals A and B , I find there is sufficient detail to allow formal discharge of condition 11 . The details provided would ensure the proper provision of surface water and foul water drainage , to ensure flooding and pollution is not exacerbated in accordance with SOLP Policy EP4 seeking to minimise such risks . 85. Similarly , the collective stabilisation, ground stability, pollution, drainage and flood risk impacts for Appeal B would also be able to be managed to an acceptable level. Accepting , there are other Appeal B matters which need to be addressed. Deed of variation adequacy / other residual matters ( linked to Appeal B) 86. In assessing th e preceding main issues, I have already factored that t he Section 73 application appealed is to vary conditions 1 (Approved Plans) and 3 (Landscaping) on the Reserved Matters approval . 87. A suitably worded and executed d eed of v ariation agreed by the appellant, SODC and Oxfordshire County Council would extinguish the reason for refusal previously advanced by SODC towards meeting existing Section 106 (s106) planning obligation requirements administered under the Town and Count r y Planning Act 1990. Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 88. As part of those considerations, at the i nquiry the appellant acknowledged that an addendum to the affiliated s278 agreement also incorporated in to the original planning obligation w ould be required . This would be needed to secure necessary adjustments to amend the highways soakaway adoption plan drawing and/or any bond provision if required . 89. Such amendment would be able to be achieved through a new separate s278 entered into by the appellant and the County Council directly. In that context, I note that the County Council have indicated that no further revision to Schedule 7 of the original s106 planning obligation would therefore be necessary. 90. The original s106 terms are not otherwise contended by the main appeal parties and I have no substantive reason to conclude the resultant provi si ons are not acceptable . Consequently, there would be suitable binding arrangements in place securing affordable housing, infrastructure and mitigation meeting SODC ’s reasons for refusal applied to Appeal B. 91. Whether or not adequate drainage design (linked to Appeal C) and ground stabilisation works (linked to Appeal A) can be provided , having regard to pollution risks to a local aquifer; public water abstraction; as well as the stability of the land for development and flood risk is answered by my overall reasoning in the preceding main issue s . 92. Accordingly, I find the information available linked to Appeal B alongside the submitted d eed of v ariation coupled with the original s106 meets the terms of S OLP Policies INF1, TRANS4, TRANS5, EP3, EP4, ENV1, CF5, ENV12 and DES7 . As well as J HHNP Policies ENV5, H2, and T5 . Collectively those policies seek to ensure: appropriate infrastructure and mitigation including for transport and affordable housing provision; that the quality of the local landscape and the countryside is respected; appropriate regard is paid to geology and drainage ; the efficient use and protection of natural resources; pollution a nd amenity harm avoidance ; as well as facilitating safe walking routes . Other planning considerations 93. For all of the appeals I have carefully considered other public objections relating to: the appellant’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) credibility and alleged deficiency; noise, vibration and air quality assessment inclusion in the EIA; harm to human health/absence of proof of adequate safety levels or contingency plans if pollution or contamination of the ground/water did occur; absence of monitoring; and alleged flawed drainage and foul waste disposal . 94. As well as further claims that : planning permission should not have been granted in the first instance; the overall complexity of the site conditions has been underestimated without robust investigation; some risks are unquantifiable; carbon footprint impacts; soil damage; adverse implications to water, gas and sewage utilities ; negative impacts to wildlife; unacceptable increases in traffic; conflict with sustainability goals; other sites/alternatives should be pursued for housing; neighbourhood planning i nterests should not be ignored ; and that new housing numbers should not override public safety or water supply management interests. 95. In summary those considerations do not give me compelling reasons to refuse planning permission or condition discharge. Mainly because of the findings of Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 the officer reports informing SODC’s decisions having regard to statutory consultee advice, as well as condition and planning obligation use applicable . B ut also, because the appellant has otherwise given adequate overall reasoning of why its approaches are acceptable. 96. Having regard to the Town and Country Planning ( EIA ) Regulations 2017 , inclusive of Schedule 4, I am satisfied there is sufficient overall environmental information available to inform a decision . Noting t he appeal parties have agreed to the main inquiry issues as informed by topic specific statements bearing in mind all other third party opposition to the appeal in advance of the opening of the inquiry . 97. Tellingly, as highlighted in SODC’s officer committee report findings I note that Thames Water has raised no objection to the development. Furthermore, one of the roles of the EA is to protect groundwater sources used to supply drinking water from pollutio n and they have also raised no objection to the proposed ground stabilisation works. The responses of those statutory bodies carry significant overarching weight. 98. The engineering works detailed within Appeal A is not in itself a proposal for new housing. Therefore, applying the til t ed balance within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework ) would not be appropriate. Nevertheless, the fact that the engineering proposal would be undertaken to facilitate much needed new housing in a n administrative area which cannot otherwise demonstrate an adequate housing land supply remains . Accordingly, i n the circumstances, I do give substantial weight to enabling new housing as an underpinning reason for the appellant making the planning application linked to Appeal A . 99. Connected to that matter as an overarching point, I agree with interested parties objecting to the appeal scheme s that housing supply pressures in themselves should not override public safety interests or unacceptable risks to the water supply. However, in this case c oupled with my findings on the main issues and the ability to use appropriately worded planning conditions alongside legal agreement use, there is nothing compelling to suggest such public concerns amount to strong enough reasons to resist the appeals when considered collectively or in isolation . The most pertinent risk factor s are adequately addressed. 100. P aragraph 61 of the Framework is relevant. It advocates to support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay. The overall aim should be to meet an area’s identified housing need, including with an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community . 101. In accordance with the Framework, enabling the delivery of new housing within the locality carr ies significant positive economic and social benefits. 102. T he adverse impacts of the proposal s identified in the E nvironmental S tatement Addendum relating to carbon emissions and embodied carbon attract moderate negative weight. I also concur with SODC that w ith respect to A ppeal B, the impact of the construction compound on the woodland planting area would have a minor negative environmental impact, albeit it is alleviated Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 by planning conditions. I have factored th ese position s into my overall conclusions. Conditions 103. Without prejudice , the main parties comp il ed two separate lists of planning conditions . One applicable to Appeal A , the other applicable to Appeal B , in the event either is allowed. The lists are only partially agreed by the appellant as SODC and TFAG argue further alternative inclusions and wording extending to prior to commencement inclusions . 104. S ection 70(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables a local planning authority when granting permission to impose planning conditions as they think fit . Nevertheless, a pre - commencement condition must not be imposed on the grant of permission (other than a grant of outline planning permission within the meaning of Section 92 of the 1990 Act) without the written agreement of the applicant except in the circumstances set o ut in the Town and Country Planning (Pre - commencement Conditions) Regulations 2018 . 105. I have considered all elements relative to the legal tests referenced in paragraph 5 7 of the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance, allowing for minor adjustment where necessary. For the avoidance of any doubt the legal tests for a planning condition are whether it is : necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise; and reasonable in all other respects. Appeal A conditions 106. S tandard conditions would be needed to specify the time limit and plans in line with statutory provision and to enable a formal mechanism for amendment. 107. I realise that a greater amount of compaction grouting may , or may not , be required above that shown on the proposed Drill and Grout Plan . Importantly, t he p lan needs to be read alongside the O utline Project Method Statement and the Specification for the Stabilisation of Dissolution Features as well . T ogether with those documents t he umbrella terms of the description of the development appealed do facilitate due latitude. 108. If need ed , although I am not suggesting it w ould be, a further variation of condition application could be applied for , substituting the p lan should stabilisation works be more pervasive . But in any event, g iven the practicalities of undertaking the extensive ground engineering work applied for of which there is fair and sufficient approximate indication of already, it is also reasonable to allow some practical working leigh way . Plus, some plan deviation s may not trigger further consent . Either way the Council would retain adequate enforcement control s . 109. Additional conditions pertaining to e nvironmental p ermitting and collateral warranties are disputed . It is not clear what environment al permit (s) if any would b e required. I have no reason to believe EA focused requirements operating outside the planning system would not be duly followed or be able to function effectively . The onus would remain on the appellant to ensure compliance is met with the EA . Likewise , wider private contract interest mechanisms alluded to fall outside the scope of public interest matters to which Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 the planning permission would relate. Thus, those added component s would fail the legal test of necessity . 110. A SPS planning condition would be required to minimise the prospect of harm to the water environment from a risk manag ement perspective which incorporates monitoring . I note that grout composition and permit verification risks aligned to SODC’s and TFAG ’s overall co ncerns would be alleviated by its inclusion . Th is is because the Planning Authority would be able to consult the EA and other relevant statutory consultees on the suitability of the SPS details once received . The process facilitates requesting further details if required . 111. A surface water drainage scheme would be needed to manage residual pollution and flooding risks . In the prior to development commencing wording agreed by the appellant, it is reasonable to expect that any future strategy to be a pproved by the Planning Authority can , and sh ould include , monitoring as part of the management details to be provided . H aving regard to residential properties and Reading Road . 112. A soil management and phasing condition would be required to reduce the risk of unwanted soil compaction to assist with successful landscaping establishment. 113. C ondition s requiring a Construction Environmental Management Plan and tree protection details are required to protect ecological features , protected species and visually important trees . 114. A condition preventing grouting below the water table would be required to ensure no harm arises to the water environment. The app ellant has otherwise indicated it intends to utilise a 2 metre water table safety buffer . Thus, further stipulation in the wording would not improve the effectiveness of the condition to protect water resources or its subsequent enforceability. 115. C onstruction management c onditions securing : the restricti on of piling; air quality mitigation ; a Construction Traffic Management Plan ; a s well as construction methods and hours are required . These would be necessary to reduce the potential for harm to the water environment; to protect the living conditions of neighbouring residents and in the interests of highway safety. Appeal B conditions 116. A s tandard planning condition listing all approved plans would be appropriate having regard to statutory provisions and to facilitate any future amendments. 117. A landscaping , maintenance and replacement condition would be required to ensure the development properly assimilates with its surroundings. However, a future occupants/ landscape guide condition suggested as being agreed by the appellant would not meet enforceability or necessity tests . 118. Separate to that I agree a Travel Plan condition is necessary to promote non - car modes of transportation and sustainable travel . 119. A suite of planning conditions would be essential securing : visibility splays and their retention ; other highways related infrastructure (vehicle access, cycle ways, driveways and turning areas with associated surfacing and drainage) ; alongside construction management details to ensure adequate safety levels. The underlying construction management principles already agreed, but sought Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 to be further address ed, would be able to be effective without further alteration . 120. For the same reasons already mentioned linked to Appeal A I do not find conditions requ iring environmental permit verification or collateral warrant ies would be necessary. 121. C onditions would also be required to secure an Environmental Management Plan for Biodiversity and lighting details to protect ecological assets, interests and species. 122. A pre - commencement condition securing approval of a water drainage strategy and its subsequent implementation alongside other related conditions would be vital . The condition s would ensure suitable overall site drainage is achieved. Bearing in mind all submissions, the expected strategy should in corporate phasing, infiltration testing and future maintenance elements to minimise the risk s of any future harm (s) occurring . 123. An addition al condition for verification of the adoption arrangements anticipated under Section 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991 is warranted in line with SODC ’s and the R ule 6 ’s concerns . It is within the overall public interest to allow such a bespoke safeguard having regard to the overall design amendment and refinements indicated to be necessary relative to local flood risk management interests . 124. C onditions requiring c ompletion of groundworks would be needed to ensure the appeal site is safe. Above that, f urther house foundation inspection checks within the planning consent would not be necessary given the compaction grouting process es detailed by the appellant overall . 125. Further more, conditions are necessary and appropriate for fence/boundary treatment s and a noise assessment for the pumping station a longside any mitigation detail implementation . This w ould ensure the character of the area is respected and satisfactory resultant living conditions are achievable . Planning Balance and 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/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 129. Pursuant to Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, local planning authorities and other decision makers should first have regard to the development plan and then to any ot her material considerations. 130. If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise . 131. In the above context, I have found that the appellant demonstrates full compliance with the adopted development plan for the area , taken as a whole , bearing in mind all opposing contentions made . 132. As the appeal proposals com ply with the d evelopment p lan , subsequently it leads me to apply paragraph 11 (c) of the Framework which m eans that planning permission should be granted without delay. 133. But in any event, having regard to all risks and overall impacts t he positive impacts involved would outweigh the negative . Th e direct benefits arising relative to all considerations give me s trong enough reasons to allow the appeals . There are no other considerations of sufficient weight ( including resultant carbon emissions , embedded carbon and the overall environmental impacts) counting against the proposals within each of the appeals to conclude otherwise. 134. For the reasons set out above Appeals A, B and C all succeed . M Shrigley INSPECTOR APPEARANCES FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Michael Bedford KC WHO CALLED: Tony Clothier PhD Eng(Civil) BSc Eng(Civil) CEng CEnv CWEM Drainage/ f lood risk witness James Dodds BSc DUC MSc CGeol FGS FIQ Hydrogeology witness Richard Brinkworth B E ng CEng MICE ROGEP Ground engineering w itness Stephen Jupp BA LLM MRTPI Planning w itness Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 FOR THE RULE 6 PARTY: Richard Banwell Counsel WHO CALLED: Paul Eccleston BA(Hons) CertWEM CWEM MCIWEM Drainage/flood risk w itness Beverley Parrish BSc(Hons) MSc FGS Cgeol FEMA GSL Geology, h ydrogeology & e nvironmental r isk witness FOR THE APPELLANT: Sasha White KC Andrew Parkinson WHO CALLED: Hannah Fraser BA ( Hons ) MSc FGS C G eol SiLC Hydrogeology witness Dr Clive Edmonds Engineering geology w itness Andrew Dunhill BSc CEng MIMMM Grouting witness Leigh Abley Drainage/ engineering witness Emma Philpott C Eng CWEM MCIWEM Flood r isk w itness Michael Knott BA(Hons) MRTPI Planning w itness DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE INQUIRY: 1) Appellant’s Opening 2) Rule 6 Party Opening 3) Council’s Openin g 4) Manual for the production of groundwater source protection zones 5) Vertase geotechnical response letter 6) Drinking Water Protected Areas - challenges for the water environment document Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 20 7) Draft deed of variation / list of planning conditions and revisions 8) s106/s278 clarification /explanation email note 9) Written closings of the Council 10) Written closings of the Rule 6 Party 11) Written closings of the Appellant 12) Completed deed of variation 13) EIA addendum consultation responses from E nvironment Agency/ Natural England DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED POST CLOSURE OF THE INQUIRY: 1) Appellant’s clarification of planning condition wording s they have agreed to. Schedule of Planning Conditions for Appeal A only : APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696 1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the following approved plans : CB_81_152_TCPA_000 - Location Plan ; D1827_66 Rev G - Site Layout Plan ; D1827_66 Rev F - Proposed Drill and Grout Plan ; 1150 - KC - XXYTREE - TCP01 Rev J - Tree Constraints Plan . E xcept as controlled or modified by conditions of this permission. 3) Prior to the commencement of the development a detailed Source Protection Strategy (SPS) , including a monitoring programme, shall be submitted to and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The SPS shall include details of measures to ensure the water abstraction source is not detrimentally affected by the proposed development both during and after its construction, shall be supported by detailed calculations, and include a programme for future main tenance. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme. 4) If any significant impact to the water environment, arising from the development, is found during the monitoring programme, a Remediation Scheme specifying the measures to be taken to remediate the impact shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The Remediation Scheme, as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved timetable of works. Any variation to the scheme shall be agreed in writing with the L ocal Planning Authority in advance of works being undertaken. On completion of the works the developer shall submit to the Local Planning Authority a Verification Report(s) with evidence confirming that all works were completed in accordance with the agreed de tails. Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 21 5) Prior to the commencement of the development, a full and detailed surface water drainage design based on testing in accordance with BS EN ISO 22282 - 2:2012 and CIRIA Report C753 SuDS Manual Chapter 25.3 shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) . The infiltration assessment shall observe how the infiltration performs at the precise position of the dispersal point and a procedure shall be submitted to , and approved by the LPA , to demonstrate how monitoring following each rainfall event will be recorded and submitted to the LPA as part of the evidence base for the final design. The surface water drainage scheme shall include details of management systems that will be implemented during the grouting works to manage any potential contamination in surface water runoff. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details 6) Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed monitoring program for the performance of the outfall should be submitted to , and approved , by the L ocal P lanning A uthority . The monitoring program should include protocols in the event that the water at the outfall is deemed to be polluted with silt or other contaminants, or in the event that the water overtops and contributes to additional flooding on Reading road or the res idents to the East of Reading Road. 7) Prior to the commencement of the development, including vegetation clearance or ground works, a programme detailing when the soil stripping and respreading will take place shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The phasing of the of works shall take account of recommendations in Soil Resource Survey (Tim O'Hare Associates dated December 2024) and the works shall be carried out in accordance with the Soil Management Strategy (Tim O'Hare , March 2025). 8) Prior to the commencement of the development, including vegetation clearance or ground works, an updated construction environmental management plan for Biodiversity (CEMP: Biodiversity) shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall, as far as reasonably possible, be consistent with the 2019 CEMP (Ecology Solutions , dated January 2019) but shall consider the updated site baseline surveys described in the Ecological Assessment Report (Ecology So lutions , dated December 2024) . It shall include the following: a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities. b) Identification of biodiversity protection zones. c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid, reduce or mitigate the impacts on important habitats (retained boundary woodland and hedgerows) and protected species (roosting bats, badger, hedgehog, nesting birds, rep tiles and amphibians) during construction. d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features. e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works. f) Responsible persons and lines of communication. Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 22 g) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs. The approved CEMP (Biodiversity) shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details. 9) Prior to the commencement of any site works or operations, including demolition and site clearance relating to the development hereby permitted, an Arboricultural Method Statement and accompanying Tree Protection Plan shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The Arboricultural Method Statement must include the following: a) A specification of any pruning or tree surgery works to any trees to be retained, to prevent accidental damage by construction or demolition activities; b) The specification and location of temporary tree protective fencing and any ground protection required to protect all retained trees in accordance with the current edition of BS 5837 ''Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction'', and details of the timing and duration of its erection; c) The definition of areas for the storage or stockpiling of materials, temporary on - site parking, site offices and huts, mixing of cement or concrete, and fuel storage; d) The means of demolition of any existing site structures, and of the re - instatement of the area currently occupied thereby; e) The route and method of installation of drainage or any underground services in the vicinity of retained trees; f) Consideration will be made to avoid siting of utilities and service runs within the Root Protection Area (RPA) of all trees to be retained. Only where it can be demonstrated that there is no alternative location for the laying of utilities, will encroachme nt into the RPA be considered. Methodology for any installation works within the RPA will be provided and must be in compliance with the current edition of NJUG 'Guidelines for the planning and installation and maintenance of utility apparatus in proximity to trees' ; g) The details and method of construction of any other structures such as boundary walls in the RPA of retained trees and how these relate to existing ground levels; h) The details of materials and method of construction of any roadway, driveway, parking, pathway or other surfacing within the RPA, which is to be of a ' n o d ig' construction method, in accordance with the principles with in Arboricultural Association Guidance Note 12 "The use of cellular confinement systems near trees" and in accordance with current industry best practice; and is appropriate for the type of ro adway required in relation to its usage. i) Provision for the supervision of any works within the RPA of trees to be retained, and for the monitoring of continuing compliance with the protective measures specified, by an appropriately qualified arboricultural consultant, to be appointed at the developer's expense and notified to the L ocal Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of development; and provision for the Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 23 regular reporting of continued compliance or any departure there from to the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details with the agreed measures being kept in place during the entire course of development. 10) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details in the Outline Project Method Statement (Vertase FLI Dated December 2024) and the Specification for the Stabilisation of Dissolution Features (Vertase FLI dated November 2024). As detailed in these reports, there shall be no grouting below the water table and the grout shall not contain any ingredients that have the potential to contaminate the groundwater (including Pulverised Fuel Ash). 11) No piling shall take place in association with the approved development (engineering operations associated with ground stabilisation works) hereby approved. 12) The development shall be implemented in accordance with the mitigation measures outlined in the Air Quality Assessment (Stantec , dated August 2024). 13) The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the measures outlined in the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) (Abley Letchford Partnership dated August 2024 ref: Report A253/R011 rev A). The CTMP shall be implemented prio r to any works being carried out on site and shall be maintained throughout the course of the development. 14) No development shall commence on site (including any works of demolition), until a Construction Method Statement (C MS) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The CMS shall include the following: a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; b) loading and unloading of plant and materials; c) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; d) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; e) wheel washing facilities; f) measures to control the emission of dust dirt during construction; g) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; h) measures for the protection of the natural environment; i) hours of construction to be limited to between 8am and 6pm on Mondays to Fridays and between 8am to 1pm on Saturdays. No work shall be undertaken on Sundays and Public Holidays ; The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved construction methods. Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 24 End of Schedule for Appeal A Schedule of Planning Conditions f or Appeal B only : APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 1) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the following approved plans : CB_81_152_S73_000 Rev A – Site Location Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_001 Rev D – Planning Layout ; CB_81_152_S73_002 Rev D – Land Use Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_003 Rev D – Housing Mix Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_004 Rev D – Affordable Housing Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_005 Rev D – Building Heights Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_006 Rev D – Parking Strategy Layout ; CB_81_152_S73_007 Rev D – Bin and Cycle Store Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_008 Rev D – External Finishes Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_907 Rev D – Garden Areas Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_908 Rev D – Character Areas Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_909 Rev D – Solar Panel Plan ; CSA/4049/100 - Rev H – Hard Landscape Proposals (1 of 3) ; CSA/4049/101 - Rev H – Hard Landscape Proposals (2 of 3) ; CSA/4049/102 - Rev H – Hard Landscape Proposals (3 of 3) ; CSA/4049/103 - Rev J – Soft Landscape Proposals (1 of 3) ; CSA/4049/104 - Rev J – Soft Landscape Pro posals (2 of 3) ; CSA/4049/105 - Rev J – Soft Landscape Proposals (3 of 3) ; CSA/4049/106 - Rev C – LAP (Play Area) Proposals ; CSA/4049/107 Rev H – Landscape Masterplan ; CSA/4049/108 Rev E – Frontage Woodland Planting ; CSA/4049/119 - Rev A – SuDS Basin Landscape Section ; 1150 - KC - S73 - YTREE - TPP01 Rev A – Tree Protection Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_BC_01 - Bin and Cycle Storage ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_1BF_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_2BCH_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_2BCH_01 - Elevations & F loor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_ CV_HA_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_ CV_HA_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA21_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA21_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA22_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA22_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA32_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA32_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA45_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA45_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA45_03 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA47_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA47_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA47_03 - Elevations & Floor Plan s; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NT30_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NT30_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NT30_03 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NT31_01 - Elevatio ns & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NT31_NA21_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_PA34_NA22_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_PA34_NA22_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NA21_01 - Elevations & Floor Plan s; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NA22_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 25 CB_81_152_S73_FS_NA22_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NA22_03 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NA34_NA22_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NB32_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NT30_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NT31_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_03 - Elevations & Floor Plan s; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_04 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_05 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_06 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_07 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_08 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_09 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_01 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_02 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_03 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_04 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_05 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_06 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_07 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_08 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SUB_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_WC_HA_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_WC_NA47_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_WC_NA47_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_WC_NT30+_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; A253_S73_101 Rev P3 – General Arrangement ; A253_S73_111 Rev P3 – Levels and Contours ; A253 - S73 - 511 P2 - Drainage Construction Details Sheet 1 ; A253 - S73 - 512 P2 - Drainage Construction Details Sheet 2 ; A253 - S73 - 513 P2 - Drainage Construction Details Sheet 3 ; A253 - S73 - 514 P1 - Drainage Construction Details Sheet 4 ; A253_S73_711 Rev P3 – External Works Sheet 1 ; A253_S73_712 Rev P3 – External Works Sheet 2 ; A253_S73_713 Rev P3 – External Works Sheet 3 ; A253_S73_714 Rev P3 – External Works Sheet 4 ; A253 - S73 - 501 Rev P4 – Section 73 Drainage Layout Sheet 1 ; A253 - S73 - 502 Rev P4 – Section 73 Drainage Layout Sheet 2 ; A253 - S73 - 503 Rev P4 – Section 73 Draina ge Layout Sheet 3 ; A253 - S73 - 504 Rev P4 – Section 73 Drainage Layout Sheet 4 . Except as controlled or modified by conditions of this permission. 2) The landscaping scheme as shown on the approved plans shall be implemented in accordance with the Landscape Management Plan (CSA Environmental dated December 2024) and thereafter be maintained in accordance with this Plan. In the event of any of the trees or shrubs so planted dying or being seriously damaged or destroyed within 5 years of the completion of the development, a new tree or shrub or equivalent number of trees or shrubs, as the case may be, of a species first approved by the Local Planning Autho rity, shall be planted and properly maintained in a position or positions first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 3) Before occupation of any dwelling, a Travel Plan Statement and a Residential Travel Information Pack shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. Within one month of occupation, the first residents of each dwelling shall be provided with a copy of the approved Travel Information Pack. 4) Visibility splays of 2.4m x 25m at the junctions of the internal estate roads within the site shall be provided and maintained at all times. Within the visibility envelopes, no obstructions, inclusive of fencing and boundary walls Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 26 shall exceed 600mm in height and any planting shall be located outside and clear of the visibility envelopes. 5) No dwelling shall be occupied until the vehicular access, footways, cycle ways, driveways and turning areas that serve the dwelling have been constructed, surfaced and drained. The vehicular access, footways, cycle ways, driveways and turning areas provide d for each dwelling shall be retained thereafter. 6) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the measures outlined in the Construction Management Plan (Abley Letchford Partnership dated August 2024 (reference: A253 - R008 rev E) ) . The approved Construction Management Plan shall be complied with throughout the construction period. 7) No further development shall commence beyond the access works already implemented until a Construction Environment Management Plan for Biodiversity (CEMPB) has been submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The approved CEMPB shall be complied with throughout the construction period. 8) No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until visibility splays at the site access, 2.4 metres by 94.6 metres to the north and 2.4 metres by 97.7 metres to the south, have been provided. The visibility splays shall not at any time be obstructed by a ny object, structure, planting or material with a height exceeding 0.9 metres as measured at carriageway level. 9) No further development shall commence, beyond the access works already implemented, until a method statement to address the impact of the development, including lighting around the site boundaries, on the local bat population has been submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The method statement shall be implemented as approved. 10) No further development shall commence, beyond the access works already implemented, until a full drainage scheme detailing all surface drainage works, has been submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme should take account of intended development construction phases. The scheme should be supported by infiltration testing in accordance with with BS EN ISO 22282 - 2:2012 and CIRIA Report C753 SuDS Manual Chapter 25 .3 for BRE365 for all infiltration features, and features and carried out at the base of the infiltration feature in accordance with best practices. The approved s trategy shall be fully implemented. 11) Development shall be carried out in full compliance with the submitted foul drainage details. No dwelling shall be occupied until the foul water drainage design that serves that dwelling has been completed and brought into use . 12) A Verification Report should be prepared for each phase of the development by a suitably - qualified professional to confirm that construction has been carried out in accordance with the approved plans, and submitted to the LPA for approval. No dwelling shal l be occupied until the foul and surface water drainage for the construction phase in which the dwelling resides, has been completed in accordance with the approved plans, as set out in the Verification Report and brought into use. 13) No dwelling shall be occupied until confirmation of all adoption arrangements under Section 104 of the Water Industry Act (1991), including full Technical Approval has be en provided in writing to the Local Planning Authority . Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 27 14) No development above slab level shall commence until details of the fencing to the pumping station shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The fencing shall be implemented as approved and retained as such thereafter. 15) No further development shall commence beyond the access works already implemented on site until a full and detailed design for the attenuation basins has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the L ocal P lanning A uthority . This shall include: ( a ) infiltration testing in accordance with BS EN ISO 22282 - 2:2012 and upon CIRIA Report C753 SuDS Manual Chapter 25.3 at the base of the infiltration feature; ( b ) inspection on site by a suitably qualified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to assess any evidence of solution features; ( c ) geotechnical/structural design of the base to the water basin itself to accommodate loadings and to counter any possible ground movements if required; infiltration design based upon BRE365 at the base of the infiltration feature; ( d ) structural design of the base to the water basin itself to accommodate loadings and to counter any possible ground movements; ( e ) provisions for long term maintenance of the basin including access arrangements for servicing of forebay and all manholes; and ( f ) designs and slope stability analysis demonstrating compliance with EC7 for the slopes of the upper attenuation basin; and, ( g ) details of provision for telemetry to mitigate the risk of overtopping . No works (excluding Enabling Works) above ground level shall be carried out until the attenuation basin has been constructed in accordance with the approved details and the associated connections to the approved pumping station completed and are operationa l. 16) No further development shall commence beyond the access works already implemented until a noise assessment for the pumping station has been submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. Where necessary, following approval of the noise assessment the applicant must submit a detailed scheme to control the noise which must be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme must then be implemented and maintained for the duration of the development. 17) No further development shall commence, beyond the access works already implemented, until the ground stabilisation works granted under planning permission P24/2642/FUL have been completed, and the verification reports required under condition 4 of th e permission has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority. End of Schedule for Appeal B

⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned

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…

🔗 View on PINS Casework Portal 📋 LPA Ref: P24/S2652/S73

✓ ALLOWED

Appeal Decision 3361685 (London Borough of Croydon) — 2026-05-29

📍 London Borough of Croydon LPA code: E09000008 PINS reference: 3361685 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 May 2026 by R Satheesan BSc PGCert MSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/L5240/X/25/3361685 12 Devon Close, Kenley CR8 5BB • The appeal is made under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development (LDC). • The appeal is made by Mr Aliano against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Croydon. • The application ref 24/03759/LP, dated 30 October 2024, was refused by notice dated 11 November 2024. • The application was made under section 192(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). • The development for which a certificate of lawful use or development is sought is a “ Proposed hip to gable end loft conversion with rear dormer .” Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and attached to this decision is a certificate of lawful use or development describing the proposed operation which is found to be lawful. Preliminary Matters 2. The certificate seeks to establish whether the works would have been lawful on the date of the application. In an application for an LDC , the onus is on the applicant to provide all the relevant information and evidence to support their case. On appeal, the Inspector’s role is to decide whether, on the evidence, the Council’s refusal to issue an LDC was well - founded. The case must be consi dered solely on the facts of the case, the relevant planning law and judicial authority, and its planning merits are of no relevance. The appellant must show, on the balance of probabilities, that the development proposed would, at the date of application, be lawful. 3. The Council originally raised an objection that the plans submitted do not show that the new side - facing windows will be obscure - glazed and non - opening up to 1.7m above finished floor levels. In response to this the appellant confirms that the side - facing window in the new gable w ill compl y with the condition at B.2 (c) , and condition C.2 (a) and (b), Class C of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO. The Council have confirmed that this addresses their concern, and I find no reason to disagree with th is conclusion . Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the Council’s refusal to grant the LDC was well founded. It is necessary to consider whether the proposed extension would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (GPDO) . Appeal Decision APP/L5240/X/25/3361685 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Reasons 5. The appeal property comprises a semi - detached bungalow located on the corner junction of Devon Close and Godstone Road. It includes a tiled hipped roof and bay window and forms a symmetrical pair with the adjoining semi - detached bungalow at No 11 Devon Close. The main entrance door faces towards Godstone Road. However, similar to all other properties in the Close, access to the front door is via the front entrance steps on Devon Close. 6. Subject to limitations and conditions, Class B of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the GPDO permits ‘ the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse ’, and Class B of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the GPDO permits ‘additions etc to the roof of a dwellinghouse’. 7. The Council determined that the proposed roof extension fails to meet Part B.1(c) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the GPDO . The relevant restriction under Part B.1(c) sta tes that development is not permitted development if “ any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, extend beyond the plane of any existing roof slope which form the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse and fronts a highway .” 8. The Council consider that Godstone Road , which contains the front entrance door and has the wider frontage is the principal elevation , whereas the appellant considers that the De v on Close elevation , containing the front main bay window , and the entrance path for the dwelling is the principal elevation. Therefore, the appeal turns on what the original principal elevation is . The burden of proof in this matter lies with the appellant. 9. The Government’s Technical Guidance (TG) 1 provides a useful guide to interpretation of the GPDO . The TG gives an explanation of the rules on permitted development for householders, what these mean and how they should be applied in particular sets of circumstances. In the guidance for “principal elevation” it states: “In most cases the principal elevation will be that part of the house which fronts (directly or at an angle) the main highway serving the house (the main highway will be the one that sets the postcode for the house concerned). It will usually contain the m ain architectural features such as main bay windows or a porch serving the main entrance to the house. Usually, but not exclusively, the principal elevation will be what is understood to be the front of the house. There will only be one principal elevation on a house. Where there are two elevations which may have the character of a principal elevation, for example on a corner plot, a view will need to be taken as to which of these forms the principal elevation.” 10. The TG described Highway as “a public right of way such as a public road, public footpath and bridleway. For the purposes of the Order, it also includes unadopted streets or private ways.” 11. The above guidance makes clear that in “most cases” the principal elevation will be elevation fronting the main highway but also allows for scenarios where this is not the case , such as corner plots . It is therefore a matter of planning judgement based on the particular facts of the case. 1 The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s publication ‘Permitted Development Rights for Householders’ Technical Guidance, September 2019 . Appeal Decision APP/L5240/X/25/3361685 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 12. T he main architectural features of this property are the front bay window, the hipped roof (both of which are paired with the adjoining semi - detached property at No 11 Devon Close) and the front entrance steps leading up to the front doors. Indeed, the appeal b ungalow is one of a group of 12 bungalows, set out in 6 semi - detached pairs, around Devon Close. All of the bungalows follow the same broad design, with a bay window and steps on the front elevation and the main entrance door to the side. 13. T he Godstone Road elevation , overall has a largely utilitarian appearance, without any significant architectural features , contain ing a mismatch different sized windows ((including the bathroom window) with no formal arrangement. I note that the front door of the property is located on this elevation . However, all other main features of the property and the layout of other bungalows in Close indicate that the property’s principal elevation is the Devon Close elevation. The fact that the garage is also located on th e Godstone Road elevation does not assist the Council , since garages, are often located towards the rear of properties on corner plots. 14. I appreciate that the Godstone Road elevation is wider than the Devon Close elevation. N evertheless , many properties are deeper than they are wide. This is therefore not determinative of what is the front elevation. 15. In addition, the Council previously issued LDCs for roof extensions to No’s 6, 8 and 9 Devon Close . The satellite photograph provided demonstrates that all 3 of these roof extensions have been built in the ‘rear’ roof slopes , and to the back of the Devon Close elevations. I n those three scenarios the Council did not consider that the front elevation was the elevati on containing the main entrance door , and I find no reason to disagree with th e Council’s conclusions in those other LDC s . 16. Furthermore, the postal address of the property is 12 Devon Close, and the postcode ‘CR8 5BB’ covers all of the 12 semi - detached properties on Devon Close. This adds further weight that the principal elevation is the one facing towards Devon Close. 17. The Council have provided 4 appeal decisions from Hertfordshire, Hillingdon and Redbridge Council in support of their case that the principal elevation can differ from the postal address . 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 conditions of Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Clas ses B and C of the GPDO, and from my reading of the plans, I find no reason to disagree with these findings . Appeal Decision APP/L5240/X/25/3361685 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above I conclude, on the evidence now available, that the Council’s refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development in respect of the p roposed hip to gable end loft conversion with rear dormer was not well - founded and that the appeal should succeed. I exercise the powers transferred to me under section 195(2) of the 1990 Act as amended. R Satheesan INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/L5240/X/25/3361685 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 Lawful Development Certificate TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990: SECTION 192 (as amended by Section 10 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991) TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2015: ARTICLE 39 IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that on 30 October 2024 the operations described in the First Schedule hereto in respect of the land specified in the Second Schedule hereto and edged in red on the plan attached to this certificate, would have been lawful within the meaning of section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), for the following reason: The development is “permitted development” falling within Class es B and C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 for which planning permission is granted by Article 3(1) of that Order. Signed R Satheesan INSPECTOR Date: 29 May 2026 Reference: APP/L5240/X/25/3361685 First Schedule Proposed hip to gable end loft conversion with rear dormer Second Schedule Land at 12 Devon Close, Kenley CR8 5BB IMPORTANT NOTES – SEE OVER Appeal Decision APP/L5240/X/25/3361685 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 NOTES This certificate is issued solely for the purpose of Section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). It certifies that the use /operations described in the First Schedule taking place on the land specified in the Second Schedule would have been lawful, on the certified date and, thus, was /were not liable to enforcement action, under section 172 of the 19 90 Act, on that date. This certificate applies only to the extent of the use /operations described in the First Schedule and to the land specified in the Second Schedule and identified on the attached plan. Any use /operation which is materially different from that described, o r which relates to any other land, may result in a breach of planning control which is liable to enforcement action by the local planning authority. The effect of the certificate is subject to the provisions in section 192(4) of the 1990 Act, as amended, which state that the lawfulness of a specified use or operation is only conclusively presumed where there has been no material change, before the use is instituted or the operations begun, in any of the matters which were relevant to the decision about lawfulness. Appeal Decision APP/L5240/X/25/3361685 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 Plan This is the plan referred to in the Lawful Development Certificate dated: 29 May 2026 by R Satheesan Land at: 12 Devon Close, Kenley CR8 5BB Reference: APP/L5240/X/25/3361685 Scale: Not to Scale

⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned

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…

🔗 View on PINS Casework Portal 📋 LPA Ref: 24/03759/LP

✓ ALLOWED

Appeal Decision 3372038 (Cornwall Council) — 2026-05-28

📍 Cornwall Council LPA code: E06000052 PINS reference: 3372038 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 April 2026 by D R Kay BA Dip.Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/W/25/3372038 Land South West Of Rubys Retreat, Trehaddle, Cusgarne, Truro, Cornwall TR4 8RN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant permission in principle. • The appeal is made by Ms. Manners against the decision of Cornwall Council. • The application Ref is PA25/04873. • The development proposed is a proposed housing scheme of up to 2 dwellings. (minimum of 1, maximum of 2). Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising a minimum of one and a maximum of two dwellings, at land south west of Rubys Retreat, Trehaddle, Cusgarne, Truro, Cornwall TR4 8RN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/04873. Preliminary Matters 2. The proposal is for permission in principle. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing - led development. The permission in principle (PIP) consent route has two stages: the firs t establishes whether a site is suitable in - principle and the second (technical details consent - TDC) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages. 3. The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application , if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal on this basis. Procedural Issues 4. Certain types of development are excluded from the grant of permission in principle. Habitat development is one such exclusion 1 which is defined by Article 5B(5) of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended) (hereafter referred to as the Order) as including development, which discounting mitigation measures, is likely to have a significant effect on a qualifying European site under the Conservation of H a bitat s and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (hereafter referred to as the Habitat s Regulations). 1 Article 5B(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended). Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3372038 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 5. H aving regard to my duties as c ompetent a uthority under the Habitats Regulations, for the purposes of this appeal, an appropriate assessment should be undertaken at the outset to establish whether the development would adversely affect the integrity of the protected site. If the outcome of the appropriate assessment is unfavourable, it would preclude the grant of permi ssion in principle . 6. The appeal site is within the buffer zone of the Fal and Hel ford Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The SAC covers a wide area of a ria (drowned river valley) system , which includ es several component Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) . The Habitat site is recognised for its national and international importance for nature conservation. Its qualifying feature s are its su btidal sandbanks, estuaries, intertidal mudflats and sandflats , its large shallow inlets and bays , r eefs , and Atlantic salt meadow s with important populations of Shore dock. 7. It has been established that residential development within the buffer zone would likely result in harm to the SAC through additional recreational disturbance. The proposal would create a net gain of between one and two dwelling s and, in combination with other developments permitted in the area, there would be a likely significant adverse effect on the Habitat sites , without mitigation . 8. Policy 22 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 – 2030 (adopted 2016) ( the CLP ) , requires mitigation of recreational impacts f rom residential development on European Protected Sites . This is implemented by the European Sites Mitigation - Supplementary Planning Document 2021 ( ESM - SPD) , agreed by the Council with Natural England (NE) . This sets out a strategic approach to mitigation by implementation of a tariff style financial contribution made per dwelling, towards a range of mitigation and avoidance measures. 9. The main parties agree that a tariff style contribution towards the above - mentioned mitigation measures would be appropriate and would accord with the ESM - SPD. The Council has confirmed that the appellant has su bmitted a completed Appropriate Assessment template , has paid the required contribution which is detailed in an undertaking pursuant to Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) . I have no reason t o find otherwise. 10. Natural England has been consulted as part of this appropriate assessment and has confirmed it is content that the financial contribution secured by the S111 Agreement , which aligns with the Council’s adopted strategy, would address the adverse effects associated with the proposed development and would thereby relieve pressure on the Habitat site. Given their specialist knowledge, this attracts considerable weight. 11. As competent authority, I am satisfied that the S111 Agreement would secure and ensure delivery of mitigation, sufficient to address the harm likely to be caused by the development. I therefore find that, subject to the proposed mitigation, the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Habitat site, in accordance with both regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and Policy 22 of the CLP . 12. Therefore, having undertaken a favourable appropriate assessment, and noting there is sufficient certainty that adequate mitigation is secured, the proposal would not constitute habitats development. Consequently, it can be considered under the permission in principle procedure. Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3372038 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 Main Issue 13. Th e main issue i s whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location , the proposed land use and the amount of development . Reasons 14. The appeal site comprises a roughly triangular shaped parcel of land described as being around 0.10 hectares in area. It is located to the north side of the road which runs through Trehaddle . To the south side of the road are several detached properties , which sit in elevated positions relative to the highway , and which continue in an unbroken line of development , from a position around 150 metres east of the appeal site, to a position around 150 metres west of the appeal site. To the immediate east of the appeal site , on the northern side of the road, is a property known as ‘ Ruby’s Retreat ’ together with a further property known as ‘Chy Gover’ to its east. 15. The appeal site ’s southern boundary with the road has a dense belt of substantially evergreen trees running along much of its length, save for a section where a fi e ld gate provides access from the highway to the land. The site ’ s northern boundary is defined by a dense Corni s h hedge with interspersed trees, and beyond this , is a stream which separates the appeal site from the open landscape beyond . This stream defines the triangular shape of the site, the stream conti n uing immediately alongside the highway f rom the western - most end of the site , as it travels west out of the hamlet . The site’s eastern boundary with Ruby’s R etreat is a mix of hedge s , tree s and fence s . The site wa s sign ificantly overgrown at my visit, though two small caravans , of some age , were visible within the site . 16. Policy 2 of the Local Plan defines the spatial strategy for development. It seeks to maintain the dispersed development pattern of Cornwall, providing homes and jobs relative to the function of each place. Policy 3 outlines how development will be accommodated, with growth focussed primarily on main towns identified within the policy . However, it also supports housing growth through identification of sites within Neighbourhood Plans, within or adjoining smaller settlements through infill schemes ; through de velopment of previously developed land (PDL); through rounding off ; or through rural exception sites. 17. The appeal site is within Trehaddle, a hamlet wh ose development boundary is identified as the western area of development on ‘ Map 4 – Cusgarne Development Boundary ’ in the Gwenapp Neighbourhood Development Plan 2019 – 2030 (2020) (the NDP) . The appeal site sits outside the development boundary defined on Map 4 , though it adjoins the boundary to its east and south . T he site occupies a locat ion which is central to the extent of development in th e Trehaddle section of the Cusgarne development boundary . However, i n policy terms, the site is classed as being open countryside . 18. Whilst the appellant notes the previous siting of caravans for recreational use of the site , which were still present at my visit, and to someone previously residing there for a short while, the main parties ag r e e that it is not PDL. The site is not being advanced as a rural exception site under Policy 9 of the CLP , nor doe s it seek to comply with the exceptions to housing in the countryside which would have gained support from Policy 7 of the CLP . Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3372038 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 19. Policy 3 of the CLP provides support for ‘ infill ’ sites for one to two dwellings in smaller villages and hamlets , together with ‘rounding off’ development via paragraph 1.68 . Infill development is defined in p aragraph 1.65 as the filling of a small gap in an otherwise continuously built - up frontage that does not physically extend the settlement into the open countryside . A Chief Planning Officer’s Advice Note (CPOAN) also gives further guidance in relation to infilling and rounding off , as an aid to decision making. 20. Having examined the appeal site , I find it would not represent infill development, owing to the lack of development to its west, and would, th erefore , not be a gap within a continuously built - up frontage , and would conflict with advice within the CPOAN and with Policy 3 of the CLP in this regard. 21. It is therefore necessary to establish whether the proposal would represent ‘rounding off’ development under Policy 3 of the CLP . Rounding off is defined in paragraph 1.68 as development on land that is substantially enclosed but outside of the urban form of a settlement . The CPOAN advises that proposals must be adjacent to existing development and be contained within long standing and enclosing boundary features , for example a road, Cornish hedge or stream. Suitable sites are likely to be surrounded on at least two sides by existing built development. Development resulting in the creation of a further site for rounding off is unlikely to be rounding off in itself. 22. The appeal site is outside the defined settlement boundary . However, it sits at the centre of the hamlet, with built residential development to two of its sides. The site is substantially enclosed to all three of its boundaries, by a road and mature evergreen tree belt to its southern boundary , by a Devon hedge , trees and fence to its eastern boundary, and by a dense Devon hedge with a stream immediately adjacent to the Devon hedge , on its north western boundary, which both defines the triangular shape of the site , and restricts any possibility of further rounding off to the west , which would otherwise extend development into open countryside. I therefore find that the appeal site would meet with the de finit io ns of rounding off development in paragraph 1.68 of the CLP , Policy H4 of the NDP and the CPOAN . It would , therefore , accord with Policy 3 of the CLP and Policy H4 of the NDP . 23. Despite its spatial policy definition, the site is not in an isolated location but is proximate to the developed area of the hamlet . Whilst the hamlet itself has no facilities , it is located within 600 metres walking distance of Cusgarne , a village which has a primary school and farm shop , and further facilities are available a t Frogpool , which lies 750 metres south - east of the appeal site . T he towns of Redruth and Truro are within 5km and 7km respectively, for access to further facilities, services and employment opportunities . It would therefore meet the requirements of p aragraph 1.68 of Policy 3 of the CLP , for development to be acceptable within smaller villages and hamlets, as confirmed by t he CPOAN . 24. Whilst the location of the proposal will result in the reliance of future occupiers of the site on the private motor car , the CPOAN acknowledge s that within a rural place like Cornwall, other than in its cit y or its towns , it is unrealistic for public transport, walking and cycling to meet all of resident’s transport needs alone. This i s also ack nowledged by paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) . Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3372038 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 25. There is no dispute between the parties, that the site is of a sufficient size to accommodate between one and two dwellings , whilst maintaining acceptable separation from adjacent properties to safeguard privacy and outlook. It would also provide sufficient space for vehicular access, turning and parking, together with acceptable external amenity space for future occupiers, an d for landscaping to meet the required minimum 10% Biodiversity Net Gains. These are all elements that would be dealt with at the TDC stage, were permission in principle to be granted. Therefore, I find that the amount of development would be acceptable. Other Matters 26. There were a number of representations made to the application, most in objection, including the G wenapp Parish Council. I have addressed a number of these concerns already. However, those relating to the potential effects of future development on drainage and flood risk , on vehicular access and highway safety, on contaminat ed land and instability are all matters that would be addressed at the TDC application stage , were the appeal to be allowed . Planning Balance 27. 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 Council’s housing delivery policies have acted to restrict the supply of homes, I do not find the site’s position, technically in ope n countryside, to be decisive to the outcome of this appeal. T he site is within a hamlet setting, with residential d evelopment to two sides . I have found it would accord with the rounding off settlements policy of the development plan. 31. The site has significant screening from well - defined mature bou ndaries , together with a stream adjacent to its northern boundary, which w ould act to restrict further development . I do not find that developing the site for a minimum of one and a maximum of two dwelling s , would harmfully encroach into open countryside. 32. Consequently, the adverse impacts of the proposal associated with its location in open countryside and conflict with some policies of the C LP , would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/25/3372038 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 development applies, which is a significant material consideration that weighs heavily in favour of allowing the appeal. Conditions 33. The PPG makes clear that conditions cannot be attached to a grant of permission in principle , and its terms may only include the site location, the land use and amount of development. Where permission in principle is granted by application , the default duration of that permission is 3 years. Applications for technical details consent must be determined within the duration of the permission granted. Therefore, no conditions have been imposed. Conclusion 34. The proposed development would conflict with the development plan . However , material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. D R Kay INSPECTOR

⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned

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…

🔗 View on PINS Casework Portal

✓ ALLOWED

Appeal Decision 3364602 (South Ribble Borough Council) — 2026-05-28

📍 South Ribble Borough Council LPA code: E07000126 PINS reference: 3364602 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 May 2026 by R Bartlett PGDip URP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/F2360/C/25/3364602 Land at Victorian Plumbing, Sustainability Way, Farington Moss, L eyland , PR26 6TB • The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Victorian Plumbing Ltd against an enforcement notice issued by South Ribble Borough Council. • The notice was issued on 24 March 2025. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is w ithout planning permission, the erection of a metal wire fence and gates (“the Fence”), in excess of 2.0 metres high on the Land. • The requirements of the notice are to: i) Remove the Fence, (indicated by a blue line on the Plan), gates, posts and foundation s from the land. ii) Restore the Land where the Fence is located back to the condition it was in before the unauthorised development took place. • The period for compliance with the requirement s is : Within two months from the date the notice takes effect . • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2) (a), (f) and (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Since an appeal has been brought on ground (a), an application for planning permission is deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the Act. Summary Decision : The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed, and planning permission is granted in the terms set out below in the Formal Decision. Application for costs 1. An application for costs has been made by Victoria Plumbing Ltd , against South Ribble Borough Council. This application is the sub ject of a separate decision. Background 2. The site forms part of a wider business park , which was granted outline planning permission in 2021. Reserved Matters consent was granted for the Victorian Plumbing (VP) site in 2022, and this was subject to a non - material amendment in 2023. It is undisputed that the development of the appeal site was completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions . However, following its completion, a section of the approved boundary fencing and gates running along the eastern side of the site , were relocate d to the opposite side of a footpath / cycleway , thereby enclosing and restricting public access to th is . The appeal on ground ( a ) and the deemed planning application 3. An appeal on ground (a) is made on the basis that, in respect of any breach of planning control which may be constituted by the matters stated in the notice , planning permission ought to be granted. Appeal Decision APP/F2360/C/25/3364602 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Main Issue s 4. The main issue s , having regard to the Council’s reasons for issuing the notice, are the effect of the development on i) the character and appearance of the area , and ii) the accessibility and public use of the adjacent foot path / cycleway. Reasons 5. The 2.4 m high black paladin rigid steel mesh fenc ing and gates in question enclose a large industrial warehouse unit , together with its car park and service yard . Many units within the business park are enclosed by similar high fencing, with gates and barriers securing access to them . The landscap ed area to the north of the site is also enclosed by fencing of varying heights and does not appear to be publicly accessible from Sustainability Way . 6. The height and design of the fencing is the same as that previously approved . The only difference is that it is located on the opposite side of the footpath / cycleway to that shown on the previously approved plans . The fencing and gates do not therefore detract from the overall character and appearance of the site or its wider surroundings , which are generall y industrial in nature . 7. To the sout h of the site, there is a wide shared foot path and cycleway which runs between Centurion Way and Mill Lane . This is a designated P ublic R ight of W ay (PR o W), which provide s pedestrian and cycle access between the business park, public open space s and residential areas to the south and west of the site . 8. A further shared foot path / cycleway ha s been provided through the VP sit e, along the eastern side of the service yard , linking the existing PR o W to Sustainability Way . Due to the repositioning of the fencing and gates , this link has been enclosed and blocked off , preventing its use by members of the public. It does however remain available for use by employees of the site who may require pedestrian or cycle access from either the north or south , and who will be aware of the health and safety risks associated with the movement of vehicles within the adjacent service yard . It is also undisputed that the footpath/cycleway that has been enclosed crosses privately owned land and is not a designated PRoW. 9. The relocated fencing also prevents access through the landscaped area between VP and the adjacent premises to the east . However, I note that parts of this area ha ve been densely planted, as shown on the enforcement plan and photographs, and therefore overtime, as this planting matures, it would not be possible for people to pass through it anyway. Moreover, whilst the land is open at the southern end , and dogs were being exercised on it at the time of my visit, there is no evidence before me to suggest that this area was inten ded to be public open space providing access or recreation, as opposed to providing landscaping and biodiversity benefits . 10. In summary, t he development of the wider VP site , as approved and built included a footpath / cycleway o utside of the fenced operationa l area, which despite remaining in private ownership w as initially made available for public use and was furnished with public information boards as opposed to any form of public access restrictions . The relocation of the boundary fenc ing and gates , whilst not causing any visual harm, results in the detrimental loss of this pedestrian / cycle lin k for member s of the public . In this respect , given that the planning application made relates solely to the fenc ing and gates as a standalone development, I conclude Appeal Decision APP/F2360/C/25/3364602 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 that the siting and layout of this development would conflict with Policies G8 (d) and G17(b) of the South Ribble Borough Council Local Plan (July 2015) , and Polic y 3 of the Central Lancashire Adopted Core Strategy (July 2012) (the CS) . These policies require developments to provide access to well - designed cycleway and footways and seek to improve pedestrian and cycle facilities and patterns of movement . I do not consider Policy 17 of the CS, which relates specifically to the design of buildings, to be relevant to this case. 11. The development also conflict s with paragraphs 96 , 105 and 13 5 of the National Planning Policy Framework , which promote layouts that allow for easy pedestrian and cycle connections that encourage walking and cycling, adding links to existing public rights of way and access, and ensuring development functions well , and creates places that are accessible. Other considerations 12. Although permitted development right s cannot be granted retrospectively, the fence could be replaced with one not exceeding 2m in heigh t. T his f allback position is a material consideration . There is no legal obligation upon the appellant to allow public access over any part of their land, and this could be prevented using low er fencing, signage and security staff or cameras without the need for planning permission. 13. I have ha d regard to the v arious public consultation and planning application documents that have been drawn to my attention , but these relate primarily to indicative proposals for multiple units on the VP site, as opposed to the scheme that was subsequently granted R eserved Matters consent for one large unit. Moreover, compliance with these was not secured by planning conditions or obligations containing future retention clauses . 14. The footpath/cycleway in question, whilst having soft landscaping on one side, is hard up to the VP service yard on the other side. Other more pleasant public footpaths and cycleways exist in the area to link residential, employment and recreational open s paces. Whilst I acknowledge that the footpath and cycleway along Enterprise Drive is adjacent to the road and may be less attractive for some people, such as those from nearby residential areas walking their dogs, it nevertheless provides a safe, well - lit route, benefiting from natural surveillance, for those travelling between home and work. I also noted that the road is not particularly busy, benefits from traffic calming measures such as speed humps, and is subject to a 20mph limit. 15. I note that there is only one other business unit accessed from Sustainability Way, and the sole access to that unit is positioned close to the junction of Enterprise Drive. This adjacent unit is secured by fencing all around and has no other pedestrian or cycle access to it from the east, south or west. There is very little difference in time and distance, between accessing any other public or employment land on the wider business park via Enterprise Drive rather than the by the footway/cycleway through th e VP site. 16. As employees of VP are still able to enter and leave th at site on foot or by bicycle from the north and south, and given that the footpath / cycleway do es not provide any significant short cut or access links between other areas, restricting the public use of this link would not have any significant effect on the overall sustainability of the original development or its surroundings. Appeal Decision APP/F2360/C/25/3364602 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 17. There is no evidence before me to suggest that HGV trailers cannot be parked in the large service yard without overhanging the footpath, and it was evident from my visit that sleepers are in place to prevent this . I also noted that large commercial waste bins are situated between the rear of the trailers and the footway/cycleway . Although restricting public access along the side of the service yard may moderately improve security , I am not persuaded that the relocation of the fencing and gates is essential to the safe operation of the site. I also agree with the Council that locating the fence inside the footpath would increase the safety of its users, regardless of whether they are staff or members of the public. 18. There is little doubt in my mind that when approving the warehouse development, the Council were of the view that the footpath / cycleway shown on the plans would provide a public access link, having sought amended plans to ensure the fenceline would not obstruct this. However, no mechanisms were put in place to ensure that this link was managed, maintained or retained in perpetuity , or to ensure its adoption, transfer of ownership or public accessibility. There is also nothing before me to demonstrate that s uch a planning condition or obligation would have met the relevant test s or that planning permission for the development as a whole would have been justifiably refused in the absence of a permanent public footpath/cycleway being secured , given that the site is sustainable and easily accessible to its employees. Planning Balance and 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 considered. Formal Decision 22. The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed and planning permission is granted on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act (as amended) for the development already carried out, namely the erection of a metal wire fence and gates , on land at Victorian Plumbing, Sustainability Wa y, Farrington Moss, Leyland, PR26 6TB. R Bartlett INSPECTOR

⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned

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…

🔗 View on PINS Casework Portal

✓ ALLOWED

Appeal Decision 3376539 (Bedford Borough Council) — 2026-05-26

📍 Bedford Borough Council LPA code: E06000055 PINS reference: 3376539 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Hearing held on 28 April 2026 Site visit made on 2 9 April 2026 by E Catcheside BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 nd May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 Land to the E ast of Duck End Lane, Wilstead Grid Reference Easting: 506245, Grid Reference Northing: 244034 • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) 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 Kler Group Limited against Bedford Borough Council. • The application reference is 24/01566/MAO. • The development proposed is: Outline application with all matters reserved, except access, for the erection of up to 149 dwellings and associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for outline application with all matters reserved, except access, for the erection of up to 149 dwellings and associated works at Land to the E ast of Duck End Lane, Wilstead (Grid Reference Easting: 506245, Grid Reference Northing: 244034) in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 24/01566/MAO, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. The application sought outline permission , with all matters reserved except for access. Appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale are reserved matters to be considered through future applications. 3. In addition to the approved plans listed in condition 1 , a ‘Parameter Plan’ is provided which shows the areas for development and the area s for public open space and countryside edge buffers , as well as the maximum heights of buildings. It is proposed that a condition would require reserved matters applications to come forward in accordance with the details shown on the Parameter Plan and I have considered the appeal on this basis . However, b ecause layout is a reserved matter, I have treated the layout deta ils shown on t he Parameter Plan as illustrative rather than fixed . For the avoidance of doubt, I have also considered the Indicative Masterplan to be i llustrative only . 4. Although the planning application was considered by the Council’s Planning Committee, the appeal was submitted before the Council had issued its formal decision . Therefore, the appeal is made on the basis that the Council fail ed to determine the planning application with in the prescribed time period. I have considered the Council’s putative reason for refusal in identifying the main issue. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 5. The putative reason for refusal refers to the space between Wilstead and Wixhams as a “strategic gap” , which is the terminology used in the Wilshamstead Neighbourhood Plan (WNP). At the hearing, the parties agreed that the “strategic gap” has the same meaning as the “local gap” referenced in Policy AD42 of the Allocations and Designations Local Plan (July 2013) (ADLP) which is the only adopted development plan policy re lating to the gap between the settlements . I have referred to the gap throughout this dec ision as a “local gap” to reflect the wording in Policy AD42. However, I have also had regard to the objectives of the WNP and the associated commentary and mapping information relating to “strategic gap s ”, includ ing at Appendix A of the WNP . 6. A draft S106 agreement was discussed at the hearing , and a completed and executed version of the agreement was provided shortly after the event . A revised agreed schedule of conditions was also provided after the hearing, which sought to address issues raised during the discussions at the event. I shall set out my approach to the planning obligation and the conditions later in this decision . Main Issue 7. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the local gap designation and on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons Background and context 8. The appeal site comprises a n arable field, located between Cawne Close on the edge of Wilstead and Duck End Lane . B edford Road borders the site to the southwest, beyond which there are fields and then the A6 road which heads north to Bedford . The village extends roughly southwards and eastwards from Cawne Close , whilst land to the northeast and east of the site comprises mainly fields interspersed with hedgerows and pockets of woodland. Th is large - scale landscape with expansive views is characteristic of the East Marston Clay Vale s 1 that surround Wilstead and forms a key part of its rural setting. 9. There are a few dwellings and some commercial buildings on Duck End Lane . Together with the short ribbon of homes nearby on Bedford Road, th e dwellings near to the Duck End Lane junction form an area known as “Duck End”. Duck End is separated from the A6 and its roundabout junction with Bedford Road by fields. 10. Appendix A of the WNP explains the role of the appeal site in maintaining the traditional form of the village by separating the heart of Wilstead from Duck End, which , as an “End” cluster of dwellings was once a separate hamlet . The farmland character of the appeal site contributes further to the rural identity of Wilstead ; and the absence of buildings within the site allow s for long - reaching views from the village across the wider landscape towards the historic Cardington Hangers, which is identified as a key view in the text of the WNP. The site, therefore, makes a valuable contribution to the hist oric, rural character and the identi t y of Wilstead . 11. The plan appended to the Council’s Landscape Appeal Statement shows that Wixhams , a new settlement of up to 4500 dwellings with a town centre and community facilities , will occupy a large area of land on the other side of the A6 , extending westwards to the railway line . At the time of my site visit, the planned 1 As described in the Bedford Borough Landscape Character Assessment (May 2014, Updated October 2020) Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 area of Wixams that lies closest to the A6 , and therefore to Wilstead, w as at an advanced stage of construction . 12. At the hearing, the parties agreed that the extract from the Local Plan 2030 (BBLP ) and the ADLP Policies Map as it is shown in the Council’s Statement of Case should be relied upon to identify the L ocal G ap between Wilstead and Wixhams as it is designated in the ADLP. The parties agree that the gap, measured along a straight line roughly from Cawne Close , through the appeal site, to the A6 south of the roundabout is 725m. This aligns with the accompanying text to Policy AD42 of the ADLP, which refers to th e gap as “ less than 800m ” . 13. Appendix A of the WNP seeks to provide further defin ition as to the parcels that make up the protected gap between the two settlements. These parcels include most, albeit not all, of the undeveloped land between the A6 road and Wilstead to the west and northwest of the village . Parcels “SG2”, “SG3” and “SG4” encompass land between Bedford Road and the A6 road; whereas parcels “SG1” and the appeal site (parcel “SG5”) are located to the north of Bedford Road and encapsulate land between Duck End Lane and the A6 and between Wilstead and Duck End Lane , respectively . 14. Policy AD42 of the ADLP states that development will not be permitted in a local gap which, because of the nature of the proposal: i. diminishes the gap physically or visually; or ii. changes its character adversely; or iii. compromises the inte grity of the gap, either individually or cumulatively with other existing or proposed development; or iv. harms the character, setting or identity of any settlements separated by the gap. 15. The accompanying text to Policy AD42 explains that the objectives of the policy are to prevent the coalescence of settlements, to maintain the predominantly open and undeveloped character of the gap, and to protect the separate character and identity of se ttlements including their setting. Effects of the proposal 16. T he development would elongate the built - up area of Wilstead in a north - westerly direction , bringing it closer to the boundary of Wixams . Thus, the size of the gap between the two settlements would be physically diminished . 17. Moreover, the depletion of the wide, undeveloped space between Wilstead and Duck End would alter the visual and perceptual experience of the Local Gap when moving along Bedford Road in either direction. The change would be particularly noticeable when approaching Wilstead from Wixhams, where the development would come into view when passing the Duck End properties on Bedford Road . Moving in the opposite direction, the experience of being within a built - up area would be extended until a point near to Duck En d Lane . This is because the buil ding s and infrastructure associated with up to 1 49 dwellings would , in all reasonable likelihood, be of a scale and density that w ould be apparent through the site access and in views over and through the roadside landscaping . Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 18. It follows that the sense of arriving at or departing from Wilstead would occur at a point that is much closer to Wixhams than is currently the case. There would, therefore, be some depletion of the Local Gap in visual and perceptual terms . 19. That said, there would still be a broad area of undeveloped space between the new built - up edge of Wilstead and the A6, with Wixams further b eyond that . Indeed, the width and verdancy of the other undeveloped spaces beside this part of Bedford Road , notably those within parcels SG1, SG2 , SG3 , and SG4, would ensure the preservation of a clear gap between Wilstead and Wixhams , which would be experienced when moving between the A6 underpass and Wilstead on foot or by bicycle, or when travelling in a vehicle between Wilstead and the A6 roundabout. The curvature of Bedford Road would further assist in safeguard ing the Local Gap , because it would impede inter visibility between the development and the area near to the A6 underpass . 20. Views of the development from the Public Right of Way (PRoW) 3 to the south of Vicarage Farm would be limited due to the presence of intervening buildings, trees, and hedgerows. Furthermore, the footpath here crosses a series of fields and the A6 road and , given the distance between the nearest properties on Bedford Road and th ose in Wixams, the footpath has the character of a countryside walk between two settlements. This character would not be altered by the proposal due to its siting on the other side of Bedf ord Road , and the sense of separation between Wilstead and Wixams from PRoW 3 would be retained. 21. Due to the intervening fields and hedgerows, the development would have a discrete presence in long - distance views from the footpath network to the north - east of the site , such that there would be no harm caused to the character of the landscape beyond the local level . I t would have greater prominence in shorter distance views , specifically from PRoW 13 beyond the end of Duck End Lane. The built form of Wixams is also apparent from th is vantage point. However, so too is the undeveloped landscape between and around the settlements that would be unaffected by the proposal. Consequently, there would be no sense from PRoW 13 of Wilstead and Wixams coming together as one entity even though the development would be visible within the landscape . 22. Even though landscaping is proposed, the erection of up to 149 homes with associated infrastructure would harmfully urbanise the appeal site and there would be some loss of visual connectivity between the nearest parts of the village and the wider landscape. Moreover, w hilst the proposed open space would ensure th e retention of a gap between the new development and Duck End , the existing space would be significantly reduce d, and it would be particularly narrow ed where the rear boundary of Dove Cottage cut s into the appeal site field . Consequently, the sense of Wilstead and Duck End as historically discrete entities would be less pronounced tha n is currently the case. Overall, the proposal would have a localised yet eroding effect on the rural character and historic identity of Wilstead. 23. The proposed layout of the development is not before me at this outline stage. However, the developable area shown on the Parameter Plan would allow for the built form to extend further beyond the northern edge of Wilstead than the proposed layout for 95 homes on land north of Cotton End Road 2 . However, w hilst much of the development in the village fronts the through routes of Bedford Road, 2 Granted under outline p lanning permission number 24/02231/MAO Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 Luton Road, and Cotton End Road, this is not universally the case. I observed some parts of the village that extend deeply from the se main routes, including the area around Whitworth Way . Therefore, I see no reason why a detailed layout could not come forward in a manner that responds positively to the layout of existing dwellings in the village. 24. Overall, whilst the Local Gap would retain integrity s o that the proposal would not cause the coalescence of Wilstead and Wixhams , it would be diminished physically and visually and there would be adverse changes to its character. Moreover, the encroachment of the site into the countryside setting of Wilstead and the erosion of the separation space between Wilstead and Duck End would cause harm to the character, setting , and identity of Wilstead. It follows that there would be unequivocal conflict with Policy AD42 of the ADLP. The proposal would also run counter to the aims and objectives of the WNP, insofar as it seeks to retain and enhance the setting, character, and identity of Wilstead and to maintain the separation between Wilstead and Duck End . Other C onsiderations Spatial strategy 25. The spatial strategy for the Borough set out in Policy 3S of the BBLP seeks to direct development towards larger settlements, with limited development in designated key service centres , which includ e Wilstead . The site , however, lies outside of the settlement boundary of Wilstead and is therefore in the countryside for planning policy purposes. Policy 7S of the BBLP sets out the circumstances in which development outside of defined settlement boundaries will be permitted, none of which apply to the proposal. Consequently, the re would be conflict with the provisions for development in the countryside set out in Policy 7S of the BBLP . Heritage assets 26. There are several listed buildings in the vicinity of the appeal sit e, inclu ding the Grade II listed buildings known as Dove Cottage 3 , Duck End Farm House 4 , and Duck End Barn 5 . Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special regard to be had to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their setting s , and any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. 27. Dove Cottage is a timber - framed building with painted roughcast walls and a timber shingle roof, which could once have been thatched . The list entry suggests that the building dates from the 17 th Century although , from the information before me, it did not appear in mapping evidence until later . It is thought that the cottage was once subdivided into two agricultural worker’s dwellings before it was extended and amalgamated into a single property. The building has special architectural and historic interest due, in part, to its age, plan form, and its vernacular construction which reveal information about rural life and construction methods from the period in which it originated. 28. According to the list entry and the evidence , Duck End Farm House originates from the 18 th Century and was extended in the 19 th Century. The large size and 3 List entry number 1114204 4 List entry number 1321586 5 List entry number 1114203 Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 brick construction of the farmhouse provide evidence of its evolution through a profitable period in farming, and past architectural trends . Along with its age, these features of the building contribute to its special architectural and historic interest . 29. Duck End Barn , which is thought to date from circa 1800 , has special interest as a former threshing barn and its age and surviving historic fabric provid e evidence of historic farming practices and construction techniques. The farmhouse and b arn are closely related as part of a former farmstead such that they have group value , which contributes further to their significance. 30. It is common ground that the listed building s on Duck End Lane also gain significance from their settings ; and I agree . T he surrounding fields and the narrow, tree - lined nature of Duck End Lane provide important visual and experiential indications of the agricultural history of the buildings and the area. Moreover, the physical relationship between the buildings , and their separation from the core of Wilstead enables them to be experienced as a n ‘end’ settlement, reflective of the historic settlement patter n in this area. The undeveloped nature of the appeal site contributes to this sense of separation , and it also offers a visual and spatial connection between these buildings and the wider rural landscape, Consequently, the site is an element of the setting of each of these buildings that contributes to their overall significance and special interest. 31. The proposed development would have a close, physical relationship with the built - up edge of Wilstead , such that its effects on the wider rural landscape would be limited. Furthermore, there would be no direct change to the country lane character of Duck End Lane, from where the listed buildings would continue to be appreciate d within their rural surrounds. The development would also retain some separation between Wilstead and Duck End through the proposed open space. 32. However, the development would nonetheless bring built form much closer to the listed buildings than is currently the case and, according to the Council, it could come to within 40m of the rear boundary of Duck End Cottage. The proposal would , therefore, have an urbanising effect within proximity to the listed buildings , thus it would fail to preserve the rural character of the ir immediate settings . 33. It is common ground that , through this development within their settings, there would be harm caused to the significance of Dove Cottage, Duck End Farmhouse, and Duck End Barn , and I concur with this conclusion. Owing to the scale and nature of th e setting effects , the harm to the significance of each of these listed buildings would be less than substantial . The Framework requires this harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, and this is a matter that I shall return to later in this decision. 34. The Council identifies that the hedgerows within the site form part of a historic field system and, therefore, they have value as non - designated heritage assets (NDHA s ) . Whilst there would be some loss of hedgerow to facilitate the site access, extensive lengths of hedgerow would be retained within landscaped buffers; which could be secured through conditions and during the consideration of reserved matters applications. I am therefore satisfied that this historic field pattern and the hedgerows would remai n evident , thus the NDHA would be preserved . 35. In addition to the heritage assets referenced above, there are several other historic buildings referred to in the evidence. These include the Grade II listed Vicarage Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 Farmhouse 6 , Manor Farmhouse 7 , and Granary at Manor Farm 8 which have special interest due, in part, to their architecture and historic uses . G iven the distance and intervening built form between the site and these assets , there is very limited visual connecti vity . Therefore, whilst the appeal site lies within the setting of these buildings, it does not contribute to their significance insofar as it is relevant to th is appeal. It is common ground that the setting and significance of these assets would be preserved, and I agree with this conclusion. Accessibility to services and facilities 36. I am mindful of third - party comments, including from the Parish Council, that Wilstead would not provide for the full range of services and facilities to meet the needs of future occupants. F rom the evidence and my observations, there is a primary school, a shop, public houses, food establishments, a village hal l , and a social club within Wilstead, all within a short walking distance from the site. Other retail, community and education facilities are available at Wixams, which could also be reached on foot or by bicycle from the proposed dwellings utilising the enhanced footpaths and cycleways that are proposed as part of the scheme. 37. Where the local services and facilities in Wilstead and Wixhams would not be sufficient in meeting some needs, or where capacity issues may exist, there is a regular, short, bus service to Bedford from Bedford Road, which would be accessible via new footwa y links and a road crossing proposed as part of the development. From here, there would be a wide range of services and facilities commensurate with Bedford’s status as a major town in this area . There are also bus services from here to Milton Keynes, albe it the evidence suggests those services may be less frequent and the journeys longer in duration. 38. Overall, whilst it is inevitable that some residents would choose to travel by private car, I am satisfied that there would be good opportunities for future occupants to meet their daily needs via a range of sustainable transport options. Habitats and protected species 39. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) identified the hedgerows as the most valuable habitats on the site, most of which would be retained. The small areas of hedgerow that would be lost to facilitate access to the site would be compensated for through replacement planting, which would form part of the landscaping proposals to be considered at reserved matters stage. The proposal would also be subject to the statutory requirement to deliver a net gain in biodiversity . 40. Given there is a high likelihood of Great Crested Newts being disturbed by the development, the works would be undertaken under a District Level Newt License. I have seen correspondence from the District Licensing Officer, confirming that the relevant certificate has been submitted and , therefore , I have no reason to doubt that a license would be issued. 41. The site also has the potential to support commuting and foraging bats as well as nesting birds , reptiles, and common am p hibians . The PEA suggests a range of mitigation and enhancement measures in respect of these and other protected 6 List entry number 1114196 7 List entry number 1321583 8 List entry number 1114199 Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 species , which I am satisfied would be sufficient to ensure that any adverse effects would be adequately avoided or mitigated. 42. Overall, I am satisfied that protected species and habitats would not be adversely affected by the proposal and that biodiversity would be enhanced. Foul drainage 43. Anglian Water has stated that the Bedford Water Recycling Centre (WRC) currently does not have the capacity to receive foul flows from the development. However, it also states that Bedford WRC is included within its Business Plan as a named growth scheme, with investment planned between 2025 - 2030. On this basis, Anglian Water has recommended a planning condition to prevent the occupation of the proposed dwellings until there is sufficient headroom at the WRC , with the condition ceasing to have effect after April 2030. 44. I have seen correspondence from Anglian Water made during the lifetime of the application in which it confirmed that it is obligated to accept the foul flows from the development; and that it would take the necessary measures to ensure there would be sufficient treatment capacity if planning permission were granted. Given that t here would be a significant lead in time between the grant of planning permission and the first occupation of the dwellings, I see no reason to conclude that Anglian Water w ould not carry out its planned investment in the WRC before the additional capacity would be required. Indeed, I heard that the first dwellings would not be ready for occupation until 2028/29 , which would be towards the end of Anglian Water’s investment period. 45. The parties ’ views are aligned that the condition suggested by Anglian Water would be un necessary. Due to the fact that Anglian Water is obligated to accept the flows arising from the development , and that it plans to invest in the facility by April 2030 at the latest , I agree that the condition would be unnecessary. For the same reasons, there is no basis for a finding that the foul drainage network would not cater for the development if the appeal were to be allowed . Flooding 46. A small area of the site , near to Duck End Lane, lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3. However, the parameter plan shows that no built development is proposed within this area of flood risk. Rather, t he Flood Risk and Drainage Strategy identifies that the developable area of the site is at a low risk of flooding from all potential sources . Third parties have drawn my attention to some area s of localised pooling on the site. However, the surface water drainage proposals, which could be secured through a condition , would help to ameliorate this. Consequently, there would be no increased risk of flooding arising from the proposal. High way safety and access 47. The development would inevitably generate additional traffic. However, there is authoritative, technical evidence before me to show that there would be no harm caused in terms of highway safety or congestion . T he Highway Authority has not raised any concerns in respect of the proposed access, highway safety , or road and junction capacity ; and I find no convincing reason to depart from the views of th is statutory consultee on highway matters . Overall, I am satisfied that the Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 proposal would safeguard the highway network , and that the access arrangements would be acceptable. Noise and nuisance 48. Concerns were raised during the consultation process about noise levels arising from the nearby bottle bank. Noise levels could feasibly be made acceptable through a combination of detailed measures, including the site layout, landscaping, and the design o f the dwellings, which would be relevant considerations during the determination of reserved matters applications. 49. Any nuisance arising during the construction process would be temporary in duration and could be managed through appropriate construction methods and safeguards, which could be secured through a condition. Therefore, this issue need not be an impediment to the grant of planning permission. A gricultural land 50. The proposal would lead to the loss of agricultural land. However, the Agricultural Land Classification Report indicates that the land is Grade 3b and, therefore, it is not best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the Framework. The proposal would accord with the provisions of the Framework, insofar as it expects poorer quality land to be preferred to higher quality land where there is a necessity for the significant development of agricultural land , as would be the case here. Potential Future Developments 51. Concerns have been raised that the development would enable the further growth of Wilstead. However, a ny hypothetical future planning applications would necessarily be considered by the Council against the requirements of the development plan and other relevant considerations at the time. This appeal decision does not and cannot predetermine the outcome of those applications. Benefits of the proposal Contribution to housing supply 52. The Council concedes that it is currently only able to demonstrate 3.35 years of housing land supply (HLS), which is a significant shortfall against the five - year requirement of the Framework. Given that the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 has been withdrawn, there is no emerging plan at a sufficiently advanced stage to provide certainty that the HLS position is likely to recover in the near future. 53. I heard that, if the appeal is allowed, development would commence in July 2027 and that 126 homes would be constructed within the next five years ; and there is no evidence before me to indicate that this trajectory would not be deliverable . The proposal would, therefore, make a meaningful contribution to addressing the housing shortfall and it would also contribute to longer term housing needs. The Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes, and, i n the context of the HLS position, the deli very of housing carries significant positive weight. Affordable housing 54. The Council accepts that the delivery of affordable homes has fallen short of the requirement set out in the development plan. The proposal would provide 30% affordable housing, or 45 units, which would meet the requirement of Policy 58S of Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 the BBLP . Given there is a n undersupply of affordable housing in the Borough and therefore a pressing need for additional affordable homes, this benefit carries significant weight . Biodiversity net gain s 55. There is a statutory requirement for biodiversity net gains of at least 10%, which would be provided through a mix of on - site and off - site measures. The enhancement in biodiversity weighs in favour of the scheme . However, the actual gains in this case would not be significant given the enhancements would be proportionate to the base - line biodiversity value of the site. For this reason, I ascribe moderate weight to this benefit. Public open space 56. P ublic open space would be required to address the needs of future occupants of the scheme. However, it would also be within walking distance of existing communit ies who would have access to , and would benefit from , the proposed open space provisions. The parties agree that the delivery of open space is a benefit of the scheme and, in my judgement, it carries moderate positive weight. Economic benefits 57. The re would be economic benefits associated with the construction phase, including through employment and the local construction supply chain. In the longer term, future residents would increase spending and trade, which would help to support the vitality of rural communities and local services and facilities. The benefits in this case have not been quantified and would be commensurate to the scale of the development proposed. In this context, they carry moderate weight . Pedestrian and cycle links 58. Whilst the new pedestrian and cycle links would be required to provide safe access to the site for future occupiers , the links would also be of wider benefit to the existing community . T he proposed footpath along the north - eastern edge of Bedford Road , and the pedestrian crossing , would enhance accessibility, convenience, and safety for existing residents as well as future occupiers . In my judgement, this is a benefit that carries moderate weight. The Forest of Marston Vale 59. Extensive tree planting is proposed to accord with the requirements of Policy 36S of the BBLP, which expect s 30% tree cover to support the creation of the Forest of Marston Vale. The appellant indicates that the proposal would exceed the policy requirement . H owever , landscaping is a reserved matter , an d the extent of the tree cover i s not certain at this stage . Nonetheless, the minimum tree cover could be secured through a condition; and I have no reason to find that the site could not accommodate the planting proposed. Given the uncertainty as to the extent of the additional tree cover at this stage, the benefit carries limited weight. Planning Obligation 60. I have considered the obligations within the S106 Agreement against the tests set out in the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (the CIL Regulations) and the Framework , noting that the parties agree that the obligations comply with the Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 tests . The tests require that obligations are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development , and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. 61. The S 106 Agreement provides for the submission of an affordable housing scheme , which is necessary to ensure compliance with Policy 58S of the BB LP. The obligation to secure the delivery of a ccessible and wheelchair user dwellings is a requirement of Policy 59S of the BB LP and, therefore, is necessa ry and related to the development. 62. Obligations relating to the provision, management and maintenance of open space would be necessary to meet the needs of future occupiers in accordance with the requirements of Policy AD28 of the ADLP . The S 106 also secures the delivery of the off - site highway works that are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and to facilitate and promote the use of sustainable travel modes in accordance with Policies 31 , 53 , and 86s of the BBLP . 63. Further obligations provide for financial contributions towards healthcare facilities ; and education, including early years , secondary education, and special educational needs . The contributions have been calculated based on population projections and standardised costs , which were explained at the hearing. I am satisfied from what I have seen and heard that each of these financial contributions would be used for capital projects and for a local need arising from the development. 64. The S106 also includes provision for the management, monitoring and maintenance of sustainable urban drainage systems and biodiversity areas, which would be necessary to ensure these features would endure in the long term. 65. Overall, I find that each of the obligations in the S106 would meet the tests set out in the CIL Regulations and the Framework ; and I have taken them into account in reaching my decision on this appeal. The parties are satisfied that the S106 would be effective and enforceable, and I see no reason to form a different view. 66. The East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust requested financial contributions , noting that the additional population would increase pressure on the Kempston Ambulance Hub (the hub) . The contributions sought would help to fund the costs associated with the relocation, expansion, and installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure at the hub . I acknowledge that capital funding for the ambulance service does not increase when new homes are built. However, it is not clear how the financial contribution sought has been calculated and how it would directly relate to the development. T herefore, I cannot be satisfied that the contribution would meet the tests in the CIL Regulations . For this reason, the absence of this contribution does not weigh against t he proposal. Heritage and Planning Balance Heritage balance 67. The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of Dove Cottage, Duck End Farm House , and Duck End Barn through development within their setting s. The parties agree that the extent of the harm caused to each of the listed buildings would be minor; and in my judgement it would be at the low end of the range within the category of less than substantial harm . Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 68. The harm to each of the listed buildings is of considerable weight and importance , and I also ascribe great weight to the conservation of these designated heritage assets. However, in my judgement and having regard to my duties under the Act, I find that the public benefits I have identified in this case , particularly relating to the delivery of market and affordable housing where there is a significant shortfall , would be sufficient to outweigh the cumulative harm that would be caused to the significance of the listed buildings. On this basis, the harm to the heritage assets carries the clear and convincing justification required by the Framework and there would be no conflict with Policy 41S of the BBLP . Planning balance 69. T he conflict with Policy AD42 of the ADLP and Policy 7S of the BBLP brings the proposal into conflict with the development plan. However, because of the HLS position , paragraph 11 d) of the Framework , and the similar provisions in Policy AD1 of the ADLP , are engaged 70. Having found that the harm to the significance of the heritage assets would be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal, there are no circumstances before me to indicate that the re would be a strong reason for refusing the development proposed under the provision s of either Paragraph 11 d) i. of the Framework or Policy AD1 ii. of the ADLP . Therefore , the proposal falls to be considered under the test set out in Paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework and Policy AD1 i. of the ADLP 71. A dverse effects would arise through the physical and visual diminishment of the Local Gap between Wilstead and Wixhams, the harmful change in the character of the Local Gap, and the harm that would be caused to the character, setting , and identi t y of Wilstead. Whilst the Framework does not include specific provisions relating t o settlement gaps , it nonetheless expects proposals to improve the environment, to be sympathetic to local character and history , and to maintain a strong sense of place . These provisions reflect some of the ob jectives of Policy AD42 and, therefore, the policy remains a pertinent consideration in my decision. 72. Harm would also arise through the conflict with Policy 7S of the BBLP due to the site’s location outside of the settlement boundary of Wilstead , in the countryside. However, the Framework does not preclude development outside of defined settlement boundaries , and the site would be well located to provide good accessibility to services and facilities by sustainable travel modes . The proposal would, therefore, accord with the Framework’s expectations in respect of directing development to sustainable locations. Moreover, I have found that the harm to the character of the area would be localised; and therefore, in my judgement, the proposal would accord with the Framework’s expectatio n that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside should be recognised, and it would not run counter to the findings of the Courts 9 in this respect. 73. The significant shortfall in the HLS indicates that sites for housing will need to come forward beyond those identified as preferred locations in the development plan . Taking account of this and the specific context of the site and the surroundings, I ascribe limited weight to the conflict with Policy 7S of the BBLP. 9 Including Alwyn De Souza v SSLCG and others [2015] EWHC 2245 (Admin) Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 74. A dverse effects would also arise in respect of the listed buildings, although I have found that the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh th e heritage harm . 75. Set against these harms would be the benefits of the scheme, including the provision of market and affordable housing, each of which carry significant positive weight. I have also ascribed positive weight to the delivery of biodiversity net gains, public open space, tree planting in the Forest of Marston Vale, and improved footpath and cycle links. The economic benefits arising in the construction phase and in the longer term also weigh in favour of the scheme. 76. The parties agreed at the hearing that the carrying out of the planning balancing exercise is ultimately a matter for the decision maker , although I have had regard to the judgements made in the other appeal decisions to which I have been referred, including the decision at Fareham 10 . 77. I n the specific circumstances of this case, it is my judgement that the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole and having particular regard to the key policies referred to in Paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework. The proposal therefore benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Framework and in Policy AD1 of the AD LP. Conditions 78. I have considered the suggested conditions agreed between the parties against the tests for conditions set out in the Framework. Where necessary, I have amended the wording of the conditions to ensure compliance with the tests or in the interests of brevity and consistency. 79. I have included a condition specifying the relevant plans (1) to provide certainty as well as the standard conditions relating to the submission of reserved matters (2) and time limits (3) . Condition 4 is necessary to ensure the timely delivery of the infrastructure required to support the dwellings. 80. Condition 5 is necessary in the interest of highway safety and to protect the living conditions of nearby residents during the construction period. Condition s 6 is required to safeguard heritage assets of archaeological interest. 81. Conditions 7, 8, 9, and 10 are necessary to safeguard human health and the natural environment, including biodiversity features and trees, during the construction process. 82. Condition 11 is required in the interest s of highway safety . Conditions 1 2 - 1 4 are imposed in order to ensure the protection of great crested newts. 83. Conditions 15, 16, 17, and 18 are necessary to ensure the effects of the proposal on local character , and the details of open space and play provision , can be properly considered as part of the reserved matters submissions. Similarly, conditions 19 - 22 are required to ensure that proper consideration can be given to pedestrian safety , the management of streets , and refuse storage and collection at the reserved matters stage. I have altered the trigger for these conditions because they relate to matters that will necessarily be determined as part of the reserved matters submission(s) for layout . 10 Appeal decision reference: APP/ A1720/W/22/3299739, dated 23 November 2022 Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 84. Condition 23 is required to ensure there would be adequate provision for surface water drainage and to avoid the risk of flooding. Conditions 2 4 and 2 5 are imposed to ensure there would be an adequate standard of accommodation for future occupiers of the dwellings . 85. Condition 2 6 is necessary in the interests of highway safety and to protect the character and identity of Wilstead . However, I am not convinced it is necessary for the gateway feature to be finalised at an early stage of the construction process , and I have therefore adjusted the suggested trigger for this condition . 86. Condition 2 7 is required to ensure that sustainable travel modes are encouraged and prioritised. Condition 2 8 is necessary to ensure adequate provision of fire hydrants in the interests of fire safety. Finally, condition 2 9 is imposed to safeguard protected species, local character, and the living conditions of residents. 87. Further suggested conditions relating to external materials, and the timing of the delivery of hard - surfacing and vehicular turning places are detailed matters that relate to the reserved matters. It is not necessary for these to be covered by conditions on this outline planning permission. 88. Due to the provisions of Schedule 7 of the Town and Country Planning Ac t 1990, and as none of the statutory exemptions apply in this case, the development may not be begun unless a biodiversity gain plan (BGP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Because the biodiversity gain objective has a separate statutory basis as a planning condition, it is not necessary for me to include it within the schedule of conditions on this decision . Furthermore, t he Council may only approve the BGP if it is satisfied that the biodiversity gain objective is met , and there is no reason before me to suggest that the Council could not, if necessary, secure the implementation of the measures in the BGP when approving the plan. 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 INSPECTOR SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan 24 - 953 - 03C and Proposed Access Junction Layout ADC2364 - DR - 003 P06 . Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 2) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development takes place . The reserved matters details shall accord with the Parameter Plan 24 - 953 - 03D . T he development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 3) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. The development shall begin not later than two years from the date of the approval of the last reserved matter to be approved . 4) Should the site be developed in phases, a S ite W ide P hasing P lan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the approval of the first reserved matters application . The Site Wide Phasing Plan shall define the phases of the development and the sequence in which the following elements will be provided , as relevant : (i) Development parcels; (ii) Infrastructure including all accesses, primary roads and routes within the site, primary footpaths and cycleways, including timing of provision and opening of access points into the site, and the off - site works; (iii) Surface water drainage features, SuDS and the foul water drainage network; (iv) Formal and informal public open space, including the provision for children’s play; (v) Strategic landscaping on the boundaries of the site ; (vi) St r ategic electricity, telecommunications and potable water mains provision . The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved Site Wide Phasing Plan . 5) For each phase of the development, n o development shall take place (including site clearance) , until a C onstruction M anagement P lan for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Construction Management Plan shall include the following details: (i) The parking of vehicles; (ii) Loading and unloading of plant and materials used in the development; (iii) Storage of plant and materials used in the development; (iv) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding/scaffolding affect ing the highway (if required) (v) Measure s to control the deposition of dirt/mud on surrounding roads during the development ; (vi) Footpath/footway/cycleway and road closures and traffic diversions needed during the construction period ; (vii) Traffic management needed at the interface with the public highway during the development period; (viii) Times, routes (to include specific measures such as delivery ticket instructions and location of signage) and means of access and egress for Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 construction traffic and delivery vehicles (including the import of materials and the removal of waste from the site) . The construction of the development within each phase shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan. 6) For each phase of the development, n o development shall take place until an archaeological strategy for evaluation and, if necessary, a further mitigation strategy for that phase based on the outcome of the evaluation, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The archaeological mitigation strategy shall include a timetable for works and the following components : (i) Fieldwork and/or preservation “in situ” of archaeological remains; (ii) A post - ex cavation assessment report (to be submitted within six months of the completion of fieldwork) (iii) A post - excavation analysis report , preparation of site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the local planning authority, completion of an archive report , and submission of a publication report (to be completed within two years of the completion of fieldwork). The archaeological mitigation strategy shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable. 7) For each phase of the development, n o development shall take place until a Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment Report for that phase, containing a Conceptual Site Model that indicates sources, pathways and receptors , has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The report shall identify the current and past land uses of the site and adjacent sites , with a view to determining the presence of contamination likely to be harmful to human health and the built and natural environment. If the Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment Report identifies a reasonable likelihood of harmful contamination, then no development within that phase shall be commenced until an Intrusive Site Investigation Risk Assessment Report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Site Investigation Risk Assessment Report shall identify the location and concentration of all pollutants on the site, the presence of receptors , and the results and recommendations from an appropriate risk assessment methodology . No development shall take place on any part of the site where the risk assessment identifies an unacceptable risk arising from contamination until (a) remediation works have been carried out in accordance with a Remediation Method Statement that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority ; and (b) a Remediation Verification Report , confirm ing that the site is suitable for use , has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any contamination that is found during the construction of the development that was not previously identified shall be reported to the local planning authority as Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 soon as practically possible . Development on the part of the site affected shall be suspended and a risk assessment shall be carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found , remediation and verification s c hemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These approved schemes shall be carried out before the development is resumed or continued. 8) Prior to the commencement of the development, a Construction Ecological Environmental Management Plan (CeEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CeEMP shall include the following details: (i) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities; (ii) Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”; (iii) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements) (iv) The location and timings of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features; (v) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works; (vi) Responsible persons and lines of communication; (vii) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works or similarly competent person; (viii) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers, and warning signs if applicable. The approved CeEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details. 9) Prior to the commencement of the development, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The contents of the LEMP shall include: (i) Description and evaluation of features to be managed; (ii) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management; (iii) Aims and objectives of management; (iv) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives; (v) Prescriptions of management actions; (vi) Prescription of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a thirty - year period); (vii) Details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of the plan; (viii) Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures. These shall include details of how the long - term implementation of the plan will be monitored and delivered and shall identify how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed, and implemented in order to ensure the delivery of the biodiversity objectives of the scheme. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 The LEMP shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 10) No development shall take place until an Arboricultural Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The method statement shall detail all tree protection measures and set out working methods which are to be implemented across each phase. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 11) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, no development shall take place until details of the junction of the vehicular access with Bedford Road, including a timetable for the construction of the associated works and measures to prevent sur face water from entering the highway, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The junction shall be constructed to base course level, in accordance with the approved details, prior to the development commencing. No d welling shall be occupied until the junction has been completed in full accordance with the approved details, including the provision of the surface course. 12) No development shall take place except in complete accordance with the terms and conditions of the Council’s Organisational License (WML - OR152, or a ‘Further License’) and with the proposals detailed on plan “Land on the East of Duck End Lane: Impact plan for great crested new t District Licensing (Version 1), dated 6 October 2025. 13) No development shall take place unless and until a certificate from the Delivery Partner (as set out in the District License VML - OR152, or a ‘Further License’), confirming that all necessary measures regarding great crested newt compensation have been appr opriately dealt with, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the authority has provided authorisation for the development to proceed under the district newt licence. 14) No development shall take place except in accordance with Part 1 of the Great Crested Newt Mitigation Principles, as set out in the District License (WML - OR152, or a ‘Further License’) and in compliance with the following: • Works to existing ponds onsite may only be undertaken during the autumn/winter, unless otherwise in accordance with Great Crested Newt Mitigation Principles. • Works which will affect likely newt hibernacula may only be undertaken during the active period for amphibians. • Capture methods must be used at suitable habitat features prior to the commencement of the development, which may include the use of temporary amphibian fencing, to prevent new t s moving onto the development site from adjacent suitable habitat, installed for the period of the construction of the development and removed upon completion of the development. • Amphibian fencing and pitfall trapping must be undertaken at suitable habitats and features, prior to the commencement of the development. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 15) The reserved matters submission for landscaping shall include the following details: (i) A survey of existing trees, shrubs and hedges giving their species, location, height, spread and condition and indicating those which are to be retained and those which are to be removed. (ii) Planting proposals giving location, species, number, density and planting size. (iii) Details of how a minimum 30% tree cover, to accord with the policy requirements for the Forest of Marston Vale, shall be achieved on the site; (iv) The relationship of new planting to buildings, roads, footpaths, drains and the location of all underground and overground services; (v) Areas of grass turfing or seeding and other surface materials; (vi) Depth of topsoil to be provided where necessary and the measures to be taken to maintain the new planting; (vii) Details of all hard landscaping works, paving materials, street furniture, bollards and bins; (viii) Details of long - term management and maintenance proposals for the new planting (ix) A timetable for the implementation of the works including the provision of strategic landscaping and any phasing of provision at the site. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 16) The reserved matters submission s for layout and landscaping shall include a plan showing all associated open space areas and the following details: (i) The type of open space proposed and area in square metres, to accord with Appendix 6 of the Open Space Supplementary Planning Document; (ii) Access points for pedestrians and maintenance vehicles, and measures to prevent unauthorised vehicles from accessing the open space; (iii) Litter bin numbers and locations. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 17) The reserved matters submission for layout shall include a detailed plan of the equipped play area(s) and the following details: (i) Play equipment types, locations and material finish; (ii) Safety surfacing type and colour; (iii) Details of fencing, gates, benches and litter bins; (iv) Distance from dwellings (minimum 20m); (v) Details of access paths including material finish. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 18) The reserved matters submission s for scale and layout shall include detailed drawings to show the existing and proposed ground levels and the finished floor levels for the development. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 20 19) The reserved matters submission for layout shall include details of the location, type and colour of surfacing materials of carriageways, shared surfaces, ramps, raised tables, footways, footway - cycleways, paths in public open spaces, access paths to cycle parking and houses, individual and shared private driveways, public/visitor parking, and measures to prevent surface water from draining onto proposed highways. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the details approved. 20) The reserved matters submission for layout shall include details of the arrangements for the future management and maintenance of streets and footpaths/cycle paths. The streets and footpaths/cycle paths shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accorda nce with the approved details until such time as an agreement has been entered into under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or a private management and maintenance company has been established. 21) The reserved matters submission for layout shall include details of bin storage and collection points . The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the details approved. 22) The reserved matters submission for layout shall include details of triangular pedestrian visibility splays, measuring 1.8 metres x 1.8 metres adjacent to the rear edge of any footway on each side of any driveway and/or vehicular access that crosses a footway. The splays shall be provided before the access to which the splays relate is brought into use and the splays shall be kept free of any obstruction over the height of 0.6 metres above ground level. 23) The reserved matters submission for layout shall include a surface water drainage scheme , which demonstrate s that there will be storage for a 1 in 100 - year rainfall event plus 40% climate change with a 10% allowance for Urban Creep , and that a ny discharge rate from the development will be at Greenfield runoff rate or below. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the details approved. 24) The reserved matters submission for layout and appearance shall include details of measures to be taken to ensure that all habitable rooms that, without mitigation, would be exposed to external road noise in excess of 55dBA Leq 16 hour (free field) during the day (0700 hours to 2300 hours) or 45dBA Leq 8 hour (free field) during the night (2300 hours to 0700 hours) shall achieve an internal noise level of 35 dBA Leq 16 hour during the day and 30 dBA Leq 8 hour during the night and shall be effectively venti lated without opening windows. No dwelling that falls within the scope of this condition shall be occupied until the approved measures for that dwelling have been provided and the measures shall thereafter be retained. 25) The reserved matters submission s for layout and appearance shall include details of measures to be taken to ensure that the maximum daytime noise level in private outdoor amenity areas shall not exceed 50dBA Leq 16 hour (free field). No dwelling shall be occupied until the approved measu res for that dwelling have been provided and the measures shall thereafter be retained. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 21 26) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, no dwelling shall be occupied until details of a gateway feature , including signage to show the speed limit and village name , has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The gateway feature shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the approved details before any dwelling is first occup ied . 27) No dwelling shall be first occupied until a detailed travel plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The travel plan shall include: (i) A baseline survey of the site occupants (if known) or a timetable to undertake a baseline survey of occupants (within 6 months of first occupation) to establish current/proposed travel patterns; (ii) Details of existing and proposed transport provision and facilities, to include links to pedestrian, cycl e and public transport networks and conformity with the local planning authority’s car and cycle parking standards; (iii) Proposals and measures to minimise private car use and facilitate walking, cycling and public transport; (iv) Details Travel Plan targets with relevant target dates; (v) A details Action Plan to include specific timetabled measures designed to promote travel choice; (vi) Proposed plans/methods to monitor and undertake annual reviews of the Travel Plan and its targets for a period of 5 years, including details for submitting the review to the local planning authority for approval ; (vii) Details of site - specific marketing and publicity information to be provided to all occupiers of the development to include: s ite specific travel and transport information , i ncentives to encourage sustainable modes of travel , d etails of relevant pedestrian, cycle and public transport routes to/from and within the site , m aps showing the location of shops and other facilities , and c opies of relevant bus and rail timetables (viii) The appointment of a co - ordinator who will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the Action Plan and the annual reviews. The Travel Plan shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 28) No dwelling shall be first occupied until a scheme for the provision of fire hydrants, including a timetable for the delivery of the fire hydrants, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The fire hydrants shall there after be delivered in accordance with the approved scheme. 29) No external lighting shall be installed on the site except in accordance with an external lighting scheme that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. End of Schedule Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/25/3376539 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 22 APPEARANCES F OR THE APPELLANT : Christopher Katkowski CBE KC, Kings Chambers Michael Robson BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI, Cerda Planning James Morton BA (Hons) MA CMLI, Aspect Landscape Planning Chris May LLB LARTPI, Freeths FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY : Phillip E Hughes BA (Hons) MRTPI FRGS FRSA Dip Man MCMI (Planning Matters) Paul Reynolds CMLI FRSA (Landscape) Alistair Wren MRTPI, Bedford Borough Council Penelope Jewitt, Bedford Borough Council INTERESTED PARTIES : Mark Brooks, Wilstead Parish Council Lizzie Barnicoat, Wilstead Parish Council DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED A FTER THE HEARING: 1. Completed S106 Agreement , dated 14 May 2026 . 2. Revised s chedule of conditions

⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned

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

🔗 View on PINS Casework Portal 📋 LPA Ref: 24/01566/MAO

✓ ALLOWED

Appeal Decision 3375485 (Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council) — 2026-05-26

📍 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council LPA code: E07000084 PINS reference: 3375485 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Inquiry Held on 3 - 6 & 10 - 1 2 March 2026 Site visit s made on 4 & 9 March 2026 by G D Jones BSc(Hons) DipTP DMS MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 th May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 Land north of Whitchurch Station, West of Newbury Road • 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 Genko Holdings Ltd against the decision of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. • The application Ref 23/03157/FUL , dated 20 December 2023 , was refused by notice dated 1 August 2025 . • The development proposed is described as construction of a surface car park; landscape buffer planting and screening; SUDS; erection of single cafe unit (class E); fast - charging EV points; cycle parking facilities; creation of vehicular access pedestrian footpath to station platform . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a surface car park , landscape buffer planting and screening , S u DS , erection of single cafe unit (class E) , fast - charging EV points , cycle parking facilities , vehicular access and pedestrian footpath to station platform at Land north of Whitchurch Station, West of Newbury Road in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/03157/FUL , dated 20 December 2023 , subject to the conditions contained within the Schedule at the end of this decision . Applications for Costs 2. Applications for costs were made by: • Genko Holdings Ltd against Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council ; and • Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council against Genko Holdings Ltd . 3. These costs applications shall be the subject of a separate Decision letter to follow. Although the appellant made no further application, it also inv ited me to make an award of costs against Whitchurch Town Council and Whitchurch Action Group (WTCAG) on my own initiative . I shall also deal with thi s matter in th e Costs Decision letter to follow. Preliminary Matters 4. T he appellant has requested that the appeal be assessed and determined based on proposal drawings that differ from those that were before the Council when it determined the appeal planning app lication. The Council raised no ob jections to Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 this approach and made its case on the basis of the revised details . The changes relate to repositioning of car parking spaces by less than 1m ; l andscaping alterations, including additional planting; variations to the surrounding context ; a modification to the site access to allow a bus to exit in an emergency ; and detail of the drainage and lighting scheme s. 5. In my view, the amendments are, at the most, minor and would not result in a ny substantial difference or fundamental change to the application as determined. Moreover, due to their minor nature, nor would the re be any procedural unfairness caused to anyone involved in the appeal were it to be det ermined on the basis of the revised details. I have, therefore, assessed and determined th e appeal based on the revisions requested by the appellant. 6. A legal agreement, dated 23 March 20 26 , made under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Legal Agreement) was completed shortly after the Inquiry closed. I have had regard to it when consider ing and determin ing the appeal . Main Issue s 7. The main issue s are: • Whether the proposed development would accord with Policy SS11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 - 2029; • Whether it amounts to major development in the terms of paragraph 190 of the National Planning Policy Framework; • The proposed development’s effect on trees, including those subject to Tree Preservation Order; • Its overall effect on the North Wessex Downs National Landscape; and • Whether any harm that might result from the development would be outweighed by other considerations. Reasons Local Plan Policy SS11 8. Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011 to 2029) , M ay 2016 , (the Local Plan) allocates a 1ha site, on land to the north of the railway line at Whitchurch , for development of a new passenger railway station car park . Local Plan Policy SS11 says , amongst other thing s , that proposals for a new rail station car park at this site will be permitted subject to three criteria being met . 9. The appeal site broadly contains the 1ha Policy SS11 site (the alloca ted site) but also includes additional land , particularly to the south linking to the northern platform of Whitchurch Station (the Station) . Landscaping is also proposed beyond the boundaries of both the appeal site and the allocated site , par ticularly to the north and west. The proposed car park , which is intended for use by rail passengers, would , nonetheless, be contained within the allocated site. In that respect, the proposals accord with Policy SS11. 10. The first criteri on of Policy SS11 is that vehicle access to the site can be secured from Newbury Road. Part of the allocated site extends to Newbury Road. It is in this location that t he vehicular access to the car park is proposed. The access would necessitate the removal of tree s , which is a matter considered as part of the Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 third main issue below under the sub - heading Trees . Nonetheless, there is no substantiated evidence that the proposed access cannot be safely created and operated . Moreover, t he local highway authority has not objected to the propose d access . Furthermore, the Council has confirmed that it no longer sustain s its objections in respect to this first criterion. 11. The second criterion is that access between the railway station and car park site can be secured. The allocated site does not have a contiguous boundary with the Station . Consequently , other than using a rather indirect route via the existing highway network , part of which does not have a footway, compliance with this aspect of the Policy would require a link between the car park and the Station across the intervening land , beyond the allocated site . Th is is what is proposed . 12. This access link would be accommodated within that part of the appeal site that extend s to the south of the allocated site . Notwith standing some of the submissions made, there is no substantiated evidence that this proposed access cannot be delivered. Indeed it seems most likely that it can be. As with the first criterion of Policy SS1, the Council has confirmed it no longer sustain s its objections in respect to th e second criterion . 13. The third and final criterion of the Policy is that the site is comprehensively landscaped given its location within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty , now know n as the North Wessex Downs National Landscape (the National Landscape) . The o n - site planting proposed would be supplemented by off - site planting , particularly to the north and west of the allocated site. Collectively and subject to controls that could be secured via planning conditions , the proposed planting would be substantial . Accordingly, the site would be comprehensively landscaped albeit that much of the plant ing would lie beyond the allocated site and the appeal site . The effect of this aspect of the scheme along with any wider effects is considered as part of the fourth main issue below under the sub - heading N orth Wessex Downs National Landscape . 14. Other aspects of the proposals have been criti ci sed as being at odds with Policy SS11 , particularly in terms of going beyond what was envisaged when the Local Plan was adopted . These include the amount of car parking space s and hardstanding pr oposed, the consequential effect on land available on - site for landscaping, as well as in respect to proposed lighting and sustainable drainage systems (the SuDS) . 15. I recognise that if less parking and hardstanding were to be proposed, there would be more space available on - site for landscaping. Nonetheless, Policy SS11 does not place a n upper limit on the number of parking spaces that may be provided nor on the extent of hardstanding. Consequently, there is no co nflict with the Policy as a matter of principle in these respects. 16. While not expressly provided for i n the Policy, the proposed lighting and SuDS would be ancillary to the car park . Lighting and drain age infrastructure are reasonabl y standard features that one would expect to form part of a car park intended to support a railway station. The sa me is true of the proposed electric vehicle charging points and cycle parking facilities, which also do not expressly feature in the Policy. Accordingly, as a matter of principle, none of these considerations are in conflict with Policy SS11. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 17. The proposed café unit contrasts somewhat with the foregoing aspects of the appeal scheme as this kind of facility is less clearly associated with a station car park use . Nonetheless, it would support th e proposed dev e lopment , in terms of providing a service to users of the car park and Station and is described by the appellant as having been brought about by the need to support EV charging . While such a café is not expressly included within the Policy SS11 allocation, n or is it precluded . 18. Overall, therefore, the appeal scheme would not conflict with Policy SS11 of the Local Plan. Nonetheless, i t does not necessarily follow from this that the development would not cause any harm or conflict with other planning policy . These matter s are conside red below. Framework Paragraph 190 19. Paragraph 190 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that when considering applications for development within National Landscapes, permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances and w here it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. The associated footnote 67 sets out that whether a proposal is ‘major development’ for the purposes of paragraph 190 is a matter for the decision maker, taking into account its na ture, scale and setting, and whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated or defined . 20. The planning witnesses for the Council and for WTCAG respectively indicated that a scheme th at complies with Local Plan Policy SS11 would not amount to major development in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . I have found no good reason to disagree with them in this regard. While these witnesses came to a different conclusion to me in respect to compliance with Policy SS11, as set out above I have found that the appeal scheme would accord with this Policy. On this basis , the appeal scheme would not a m ount to ma jor development in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . 21. The appeal site is some 1.18ha in area. While landscaping is proposed beyond its boundary , it would be predominantly in the form of planting rather than development . T he additional land within the appeal site that extends beyond the 1ha allocated site is chiefly to accommodate the proposed link to the Station . As set out above , such a link is a requirement of Policy SS11 yet not something that can be delivered wit hout rely ing on land beyond the allocated site . 22. Although the significant majority of the appeal site would be developed and lit , the totality of the proposed development is of a reasonably small scale , including only one building which would be of modest proportions . Nor would it have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which th e National Landscape has been designated or defined . 23. For these reasons , irresp ective of my conclusion regarding compliance with Policy SS11, t he appeal scheme does not come close to meeting the description of ‘major development’ for the purposes of paragraph 190 of the Framework . Nor does it conflict with this paragraph 190 . In making this assessment I have taken into account the submissions regarding EIA screening. Nonetheless, the tests associated with paragraph 190 and EIA screening are entirely separate , with different purposes, and one should not be used to inform the other . Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 Trees 24. The creation of the proposed vehicular access would result in the loss of three trees l ocated adjacent to Newbury Road. These trees are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order made subsequent to the adoption of the Local Plan . The extent of the allocated site ’s frontage to Newbury Road places a constraint on where a vehicular access, as required by Policy SS11 , could be located . It is here that the proposed access would be located. T he Arboricultural Sta te ment of Common Ground (SoCG) between the Council and the appellant says this is the only place the access can go. Any other, more arboriculturally suitable location is not possible for other highways or landscape reasons . 25. It is implicit , therefore, that the Policy SS11 allocation anticipated the loss of these trees a s well as any effects on other trees to be retained in order to create th e vehicular access required by the Policy . Accordingly , the proposed development would bring about no greater harm through its impact on these trees th an the Local Plan Policy SS11 allocation. Moreover, the Arboricultural SoCG also concludes that the amenity value of the trees to be removed can be compensated by replacement planting , which could be secured via planning conditions. 26. For these reasons, therefore, t he proposed development would not have a significant effect on trees, including those that are subject to the Tree Preservation Order . Accordingly, in this regard , the appeal scheme would comply with Policy EM1 (Landscape) of the Local Plan and Policy LD3 ( Protection of Hedgerows, Trees and Tree Planting ) of the Whitchurch Neighbourhood Development Plan 2014 to 2029, July 2017 (the Neighbourhood Plan) , as well as with p aragraph 187 of the Framework . North Wessex Downs National Landscape 27. When assessing the proposed development’s effect on the National Landscape , I have taken into account that, via Policy SS11, the Local Plan anticipates a new passenger railway station car park at the 1ha allocated site and that that site is contained broadly within the appeal site. 28. Implicit within the Policy SS11 allocation is that a new passenger railway station car park would be acceptable at the allocated site in terms of its effect on the National Landscape subject to the site being comprehensively landscaped . If all of the landscaping were to be contained within the allocated site , it would have a n influence on the amount of space that would be available for the car park and associated development, including drainage infra structure and lighting , particularly around the edges of the allocated site . L imiting the quantum of development and i nc reas ing the amount of landscaping on - site in this manner might be said to be positive in terms of the effect on the National Landscape . 29. However, a more rounded appra isal of the appeal scheme indicates that it would have an acceptable effect on the National Landscape , broadly in line with the appellant’s landscape witness’s assessment . Fundamental to this is how the proposed off - site planting would be seen and experienced in the host landscape . 30. The proposed landscaping scheme relies on some 1ha of land that lies beyond the appeal site. While this approach may not be ideal , provided that the mitigation , be it on or off - site , would be secured , it would be acceptable in principle. The some 20m - deep belt of tree planting proposed to the north of the appeal site would be Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 very much in keeping with the local landscape character . Notable existing examples are found nearby, to the west along the former railway corridor and to the south along the existing railway corridor. Co mparable long and deep tree belts are also present in the wider landscape, particularly to the northwest . Moreover , native woodland is a key characteristic of the National Landscape and a benefit of the scheme . 31. Although the proposed tree belt would foreshorten the host field, any Policy SS11 compliant scheme would have a foreshortening effect . To the north of the tree belt , the scale and proportions of the field that would remain would be in keeping with the wider landscape. An important aspect of the effectiveness of th e proposed tree belt as a characteristic landscape feature is that it would extend the full width of the field . This c ould not be achieved were planting to be constrained to the allocated site. 32. Indeed, l imiting the landscaping to within the allocat ed site would be likely to be less in keeping with the local landscape than what is proposed. There are two principal reasons for this . First, while it would provide a greater sense of openness, planting constrained to a corner of a large field is less characteristic of the area’s landscape than the proposed tree belt . Se cond, the boundary of the allocated site has a series of rather awkward angles and corners that are even less ch aracteristic of the local landscape . 33. Part of the landscaping scheme includes meadow, which is not characteristic of the wider landscape . Nonetheless, it is characteristic of the edge of Whitchurch where there are areas of grassland and scrub such that it would not be out of keeping here or harmful to the National Landscape. 34. The appeal site is reasonably prominent in terms of being fairly elevate d and standing on the edge of the settlement with a frontage to Newbury Road. Nonetheless, its prominence and any sense of this area acting as a gateway to the National Landscape would have been known when Policy SS11 was adopted as part of the Local Plan. 35. Moreover, due in large part to the proposed planting, v isual effects of the development would be localised and diminish over time as the planting matures . By ‘ year 15 ’ , the proposed development w ould be screened from views to the north . It also seems likely that there would be some betterment in terms of providing additional screening of existing lighting within the settlement , including that associated with the Station. 36. Views of the development from the west would be more open , particularly while the proposed planting established. The Landscape and Visual Appraisal ’s assessment that after Year 15 the adverse visual effects on receptors using the rights of way to the west would be no more than moderate appears reasonable . Since th is Appraisal was produced the scheme has evolved and now includes more sympathetic mitigation . Consequently, the se visual effects are likel y to have reduced , at least a little. Nonetheless, the adverse effects in this respect would result in conflict with Policy EM1 of the Local Plan. 37. The car park would be apparent from Newbury Road, particularly due to the vehicular access , both in terms of heralding its presence and affording views in to the site that are currently screen ed or filtered by boundary planting, including the three trees that are proposed to be removed. Nonetheless, given that Policy SS11 Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 requires a vehicular access to Newbury Road , the landscape and visual effects of the development along this frontage would be likely to be similar for any Policy SS11 compliant scheme. 38. Limiting the landscaping associated with a Policy SS11 car park development to within the allocated site would also have implications in respect to visual effects . This is because there is very little scope to position the vehicular access other than near to the northern boundary . Consequently, there would be limited opportunity to sympathetically screen the development along part of the northern boundary . The proposed scheme represents a significant improvement by comparison. 39. Due principally to the screening effect of the proposed planting , the proposed drainage scheme would not have a significant influence on the character and appearance of the area beyond that of the wider proposed development . For similar reasons , combined with its small scale and simple design, the same would be true of the proposed café building. 40. The Council ’s case is that the appeal scheme would breach the statutory duty in s85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (the Sta tutory Duty) to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the National Landscape. Its planning witness accepted , nonetheless, that a proposal in accordance with Policy SS11 would be compatible with the S tatutory D uty . Again, I have f ound no good reason to disagree with her in this regard. 41. In summary , while there would be some adverse landscape and visual effects and associated conflict with Local Plan Policy EM1 resulting from the appeal scheme, these should be viewed in the context of the Local Plan Policy SS11 allocation . Any Policy SS11 compliant scheme would have some landscape and visual impacts . The appeal scheme accords with Policy SS11. Its landscape and visual effects would be localised and any harm would be no more than moderate in the longer term. There would be significant countervailing landscape and visual benefits , such that landscape and scenic beauty in the National Landscape would be conserv ed and enhanc ed . 42. Accordingly , the appeal scheme would have an acceptable effect on the National Landscape and would be compatible with the Statutory Duty. Moreover, for reasons outlined above, i t would not conflict with Polic y EM10 ( Delivering High Quality Development) of the Local Plan and Policy LD2 (Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape) of the Neighbourhood Plan , nor with paragraph 189 of the Framework, the North Wessex Downs Management Plan or the Council’s Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document , July 2018 . Further Considerations Other Matters 43. Notwithstanding some of the submissions, the evidence indicates that the purpose of the Evingar Road car pa r k was at least partly to relieve on - street parking rather than replace or provide an alternative to the planned Policy SS11 car park . Policy SS11 was adopted in light of the Evingar Road proposal . I also note that the Neighbourhood Plan expressly supports the Local Plan policy for the development of a station car park north of the railway station - the Policy SS11 allocated site . Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 44. T he appeal scheme has been criticised in terms of safety and accessibility to the Station . However, notwithstanding planned and funded improvements along the intervening route, the Evingar Road car park appears likely to perform worse or no better in these respects than the appeal schem e . This is largely due to its distance from the Station and the intervening topography and quality of lighting . Nor would it p rovide step - free access to the northern platfor m in contrast to the appeal scheme . I am mindful, though , that the appeal scheme would not resolve existing issue s asso ciated with moving directly betwee n the two platforms. 45. T here is no substantiated evidence that the proposed lighting would fail to create a safe, secure and attractive environment for users of the development. In addition to these factors, the lighting scheme must also respond to the site’s sensitive location within the National Landscape, together with relevant biodiversity considerations . These are matters that would apply to any Policy SS11 compl ia nt development . There is no compelling reason to conclude that the appeal scheme would not achieve an appropriate balance between these requirements or provide a safe , secure environment for its users . 46. Need for the appeal car park or any Policy SS11 compliant car park has also been challenged. Nonetheless, the evidence of the appellant’s highways witness indicates that there is need , current and future, for extra station car parking broadly consistent with the quantum proposed . Although cri tical of that evidence , the Council produced no evidence of its own on this matter . 47. While WTCAG did produce evidence regarding nee d, it is not as comprehensive or as compelling as that of the appellant , particular ly in terms of likely future need . For i nstance, while 6 4 % of its users may currently walk to the Station, it does not follow that there is no latent rail - user dema nd to access the Station , for example, from people who live beyond reasonable walk ing distance from it . Although aspects of the network constrain the number of services that can operate through the Station , this need not place a constraint on future demand . I was advised that, given the length of the platforms and consistent with past activity, rail passenger capacity could be increased via longer trains. 48. Network Rail supports the provision of the car park , which also suggests that there is a need for the proposed scheme . For these reasons and bearing in mind that the development plan plans for car park s at both the Policy SS11 allocated site and the Evingar Road site , there is good reason to believe that there is a need for the proposed car parking. 49. The evidence also refers to other appeal decisions. Those in other areas would have been the subject of different development plan policies compared to those before me. Moreover, I am not familiar with the full circumstances of any of those cases. While I am mindful of t he importance of consistency in appeal decision making, it is also important that each decision is made on its individual merits. So, although I have taken all of the other appeal decisions into account, I have assessed and determined th is appeal on the basis of the evidence before me in the relevant policy context. Having done so, none have altered the outcome of the appeal. Interested Parties 50. In addition to the main issue s and the other foregoing matters, concern has been expressed, including by those who spoke at the Inquiry , in respect to a number of Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 considerations . These include the proposals’ effect on rights of way; on archaeology; highway safety and congestion, including for pedestrians and access for emergency vehicles; on water quality; on biodiversity ; on safety and security; on mental health; on the rural economy ; on drainage and flood risk ; on existing infrastructure; on criminal activity and antisocial behavio ur ; on access and recreational use of the countryside; and on heritage assets . 51. The concerns raised also relate to whether th ere is a genuine n eed for all elem ents of the proposed development ; c ommunity engagement over the proposals; wider proposals for the area; l andscape - wide archaeology ; land ownership ; infrastructure to support the development ; alleged shortcomings in the assessment of the development, including the environmental impact assessment and in a wide range of other respects ; bus services /facilities ; accessibility by means other than the car , including between the car park and Statio n , and within the Station ; connectivity to the settlement; the lack of station improvements ; pollution , including noise , light, water, air and odour ; the EV charging points ; climate change; train passenger capacity; the appellant’s conduct and motives; whether the café could/should be located in the settlement; and ground conditions and contamination . 52. The objections also concern w hether there would be any p ublic benefits resulting and if so whether they are overstated ; changed circumstances since the Local Plan was adopted; overdevelopment of Whitchurch; sustainability; layout and design; co mpliance with the development plan, including the Neighbourhood Plan ; loss of farmland; compliance with Whitchurch Design Statement, the North Wessex Downs Management Plan and National Nature Network Framework ; parking for people with disabilities; liaison with Network Rail and use of its land; whether exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated; dark skies; the creation of a precedent for other development; the site’s location beyond the settlement boundary; signage; the scheme’s deliverability; procedural matter s ; the emerging Local Plan; the site’s history; consultation and publicity of the propo sals ; and viability of the café . 53. These matters are largely identified and considered within the Council officer’s report on the appeal scheme such that they were before the Council when the planning application was determined. They were also before it when it prepared its evidence and when it submitted its case at the Inquiry and are largely addressed in its evidence and in the various SoCG s . Other than as set out above, the Council did not conclude that they would amount to reasons to justify withholding planning permission. I have bee n provided with no substantiated evidence which would prompt me to disagree with the Council’s conclusions in these respects subject to the imposition of planning obligations and conditions as discussed below . Planning Obligations 54. In the event that planning permission were to be granted and implemented , the planning obligations within the Legal Agreement would secure: • A Landscape Management Plan , its implementation and its maintenance ; and • On and off - site b iodiversity measures , including a Biodiversity Gain Report , Biodiversity Gain Land, Biodiversity Metric and Habitat Management and Monitoring , and long - term management , as well as a payment to support monitoring. 55. The Council has submitted a detailed statement (the CIL Compliance Statement), which address es the application of statutory requirements t o the planning Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 obligations within the Legal Agreement and set s out the relevant planning policy support / justification. 56. I have considered the planning obligations of the Legal Agreement in light of Regulation 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) and government policy and guidance on the use of planning obligations. Having done so, I am satisfied that those obligations would be required by and accord wit h the policies set out in the CIL Compliance Statement. Overall, I am satisfied that all of those obligations are directly related to the proposed development, fairly and reasonably related to it and necessary to make it acceptable in planning terms . Conditions 57. A schedule of 24 suggested conditions agreed between the Council and the appellant has been submitted, which includes the standard time limit condition. I have considered these in the light of government guidance on the use of planning conditions and made a djustments accordingly . 58. In order to provide certainty, a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans would be necessar y . To protect highway safety and the living conditions of local residents and in the interests of biodiversity, conditions would be necessary to control matters during the construction phase, including dust and air quality, and compliance with a Construction Environmental Management Plan. 59. Conditions to safeguard against contamination that might affect the site, including unsuspected contamination, along with any requisite remediation, and to control soil and other material imported to the site , would be necessary to protect the health and well - being of future occupiers and on/ off - site receptors as well as in the interests of biodiversity . Also i n the interests of biodiversity, c ondition s would be necessary to mitigate the development’s effects on protected species and their habitat . 60. Further conditions woul d be necessary to ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined / recorded . To protect the character and appearance of the area and i n the interests of biodiversity, condition s would be necessary to protect retained trees and ensure the establishment of new tree plan t ing , to secure a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan , and to control levels , earthworks and lighting . 61. Conditions to secure the installation and management of sustainable drainage would be necessary in the interests of flood prevention, to provide appropriate and adequate facilities , and to protect the environment. To ensure safe, practical and inclusive pedestrian facilities are provided, to protect the character and appearance of the area and in the interests of biodiversity, a condition to secure the delivery of an accessible link between the site and the S tation’s northern platform would be necessary . 62. A condition would be necessary to secure and control cooking fume extraction measures associated with the café to protect the living conditions of nearby occupiers. To help ensure the efficient operation of the car park and that it serves users of the S tation appropriately , a condition would be necessary to secure a Car Park Management Plan along with its implementation . Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 63. To promote the use of sustainable modes of transport and to protect the character and appearance of the area , a condition to control the provision of on - site electric vehicle charging facilities would be necessary. To protect the living conditions of neighbours , a condition to control noise and vibration from equipment within the site would be necessary. To protect highway safety and manage traffic flow, a condition would be necessary to secure and retain the vehicular access point and associated visibility splays . Planning Balance 64. 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 my view the public interest in such a scheme and exceptional circumstances were already proven when the site was allocated in the Local Plan . Furthermore, t here are significant public interest considerations associated with the delivery of the appeal scheme, which in the context of the Policy SS11 allocation and wider considerations outlined above, would amount to exceptional c ircumstances in the terms of Framework paragraph 190 . 69. Again, although I have not done so , h ad I concluded that the proposed development were to be in conflict with Policy SS11, I would not have concluded that there would be a breach of the Statutory Duty bearing in mind that Policy SS11 allocates car park development on a 1ha site . As the appellant points out, it would be an overextension to claim that one form of disposition of typical car parking elements within the allocated site breaches the S tatutory D uty while another may not . 70. Moreover, the appeal scheme meets the S tatutory D uty in many ways, including by supporting the use of the rail netw ork as a s ustainable mode of transport, and via biodiversity improvement s and native tree planting . It would b ring substantial benefits . Nota ble amongst these are the support that the car park would bring to rail travel as a sustainable mode of transport, the biodiversity net gain and the native planting . There are also the landscape and visual benefits relative to the Council ’s favoured approach. Although the benefits of the scheme are not a s numerous and weighty as the appellant claim s , the y would comfortably outweigh Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 the residual harm that I have identified a nd the p olicy conflict alleged by the Council , including in respect to Policy SS11 . 71. For these reasons, ther efore, the appeal scheme is undoubtedly sustainable development in the terms of the Framework and should be granted planning permission. Conclusion 72. For all of the reasons given above and , subject to the identified conditions , the appeal should be allowed. G D Jones INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 APPEARANCES 1 FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Ruchi Parekh , Counsel Instructed by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Sh e called Frank Spooner BSc(Hons) RCArborA MArborA TechCert (ArborA) VETCert (Consulting) Operations Director & Senior Consultant , Simon Jones Associates Anne Priscott BA(Hons) C ML I Anne Priscott Associates Ltd Stephanie Baker BSc(Hons) M Sc MRTPI Associate , Bell Cornwell FOR THE APPELLANT: Sasha White 2 , King’s Counse l Instructed by Bidwells H e called Thomas Eckhardt Dipl Geol CGeol Technical Director & Hydrogeologist, WSP UK Peter Wharton BSc(Hons) FArborA MICFor Director, Wharton Natural Infrastructure Consultants Ian Dix BSc(Hons) MS c CMILT MCIHT Director, Transport Planning & Mobility SLR Consulting Limited Clare Brockhurst FLI BSc(Hons) Dip LA Director, Leyton Place Limited Christopher Pattison BA(Hons) BPI MRTPI Head of Planning, Bidwells LLP FOR WHITCHURCH TOWN COUNCIL AND WHITCHURCH ACTION GROUP : Jane Piper Instructed by Whitchurch Town Council & Whitchurch Action Group Sh e called David Williams BA(Hons) Dip(Hons) LA CMLI Principal, David Williams Landscape Consultancy Ltd Jane Piper BA(Hons) B TP MRTPI Director, Lucid Planning INTERESTED PERSONS: Jacqueline Browne Local Resident & Whitchurch Action Group David Gosling Local Resident & Whitchurch Action Group 1 Brian O'Donovan, Principal Planning Office r of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council , and Billy Palmer, Partner, Planning, Bidwells, contributed to the conditions / planning obligations session 2 Mr White was assisted by Poppy Kemp, Co unsel Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 DOCUMENT S submitted at the Inquiry ID1 - The Appellant ’s Opening ID2 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council ’s Opening ID3 - Whitchurch Town Council & Whitchurch Action Group ’s Opening ID4 - Jacqueline Brown e ’s script ID5 - David Gosling ’s script ID6 - Lead Local Flood Authority Comments dated 15 January 2026 ID7 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council ’s Closing Statement ID8 - Whitchurch Town Council & Whitchurch Action Group ’s Closing Statement ID9 - The Appellant ’s Closing Statement Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS FOR APPEAL REF APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 : 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • Site location plan Dwg 1277.01 - 001 Rev B • Existing site plan Dwg 1277.01 - 010 Rev F • Proposed site plan Dwg 1277.01 - 101 Rev I • Proposed café ground floor plan Dwg 1277.01 - 102 Rev A • Proposed café roof plan Dwg 1277.01 - 103 Rev A • Proposed café elevation Dwg 1277.01 - 200 Rev B • Site Access Arrangement Dwg ITB16002 - GA - 027 Rev C • Landscape Proposals Dwg CLPD 243 P01 • Station Car Park Existing Topography (Sheet 1 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0101 Rev P01 • Station Car Park Existing Topography (Sheet 2 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0102 Rev P01 • Station Car Park Proposed Drainage Strategy (Sheet 1 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0501 Rev P02 • Station Car Park Proposed Drainage Strategy (Sheet 2 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0502 Rev P02 • Station Car Park Drainage Catchment Plan (Sheet 1 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - XX - C - DR - 0510 Rev P01 • Station Car Park Drainage Catchment Plan (Sheet 2 of 2) Dwg 9857 - WSP - CP - X C - DR - 0511 Rev P01 • External Lighting Layout Dwg 1553 - WEL - XX - XX - DR - E - 7000 Rev C03 • LV Services Layout Dwg 15 5 3 - WEL - XX - XX - DR - E - 7001 Rev C03 3) No development shall commence on site (including site preparation , any groundworks and any off - site works ) until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The approved CEMP shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The CEMP shall include, but not be limited to: • Procedures for maintaining good public relations including complaint management; • Public consultation and liaison; • Arrangements for liaison with the Council’s Environmental Protection Team; • All works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary, or at such other place as may be approved by the LPA, shall be carried out only between the following hours: 0730 Hours and 1800 Hours on Mondays to Fridays and 0800 and 1300 Hours on Saturdays and; at no time on Sundays and Public Holidays; • Deliveries and removal of plant, equipment, machinery and waste shall only take place within the permitted hours detailed above; Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 • Mitigation measures as defined in BS 5528: Parts 1 and 2: 2009 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites shall be used to minimise noise disturbance from construction works; • Procedures for emergency deviation of the approved working hours; • An undertaking to require all contractors to be ‘Considerate Contractors’ by being aware of the needs of neighbours and the environment; • Control measures for dust, dirt and other air - borne pollutants; • Measures for controlling the use of lighting whether required for safe working or for security purposes; • Means of direct access (temporary or permanent) to the site from the adjoining maintainable public highway; • The parking and turning of vehicles of operatives and visitors off - carriageway, timeframes of delivery to be provided; • The loading and unloading of plant and materials away from the maintainable public highway, where appropriate; • Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development away from the maintainable public highway; • The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; • A scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway, particularly during the peak periods (i.e. Monday to Friday AM peak (07.30 to 09.30) and PM peak (16.00 to 18.00) periods); • The routes to be used by construction traffic to access and egress the site so as to avoid undue interference with the safety and operation of the public highway and adjacent roads, including construction traffic holding areas both on and off the site as necessary; • Method of cleaning wheels and chassis of all HGV's, plant and delivery vehicles leaving the site; • Means of keeping the site access road and adjacent public highway clear of mud and debris during site demolition, excavation, preparation and construction. No vehicles shall leave the site in a condition whereby mud, clay or other deleterious materials would be deposited on the public highway; and • Implications for and management of Whitchurch Public Footpaths 248/7/1 and 248/504/1 during construction . The CEMP shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be installed and operational before any development commences and retained in working order throughout the duration of the development. 4) No works shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA): (a) A site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as being appropriate by the desk study in accordance with BS10175:2011 - Investigation of Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice; and, unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA , (b) A detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid risk from contaminants or gases when the site is developed. The scheme shall include a timetable of works and site management procedures and the nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works. The scheme shall ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and if necessary, proposals for future maintenance and monitoring. Unless part (a) identifies significant contamination, it may transpire that part (a) is sufficient to satisfy this condition, meaning part (b) need not be subsequently carried out. This would need to be approved in writing by the LPA. If during any works contamination is encountered which has not been previously identified by these reports it shall be reported immediately to the LPA. The additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme, approved in writing by the LPA. 5) No development shall take place until a mitigation method statement relating to dormice that evidences how and when works are to take place and the specific measures that shall be put in place to retain dormice populations in “favourable conservation status” in line with protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (Amended) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be delivered in accordance with the appro ved mitigation method statement. 6) No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological evaluation, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved, a programme of archaeologic al mitigation of impact shall be completed in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation. 7) No development, including land clearance, demolition, groundworks or the delivery of materials, shall commence until an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The AMS shall accord with BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations and shall include, but not be limited to: a) Details of all tree - works operations, including timing and methodology; b) Measures for the protection of all retained trees and hedgerows; c) A schedule of works to be undertaken prior to commencement of development; d) A programme of arboricultural supervision and monitoring; e) Detailed working methods for all operations within the Root Protection Areas (RPAs) of retained trees; f) Existing and proposed levels, including full details of earthworks (cut and fill), supported by cross - sectional drawings; g) Construction methodologies for hard surfacing, access construction and any special engineering solutions within RPAs; h) Details and locations of underground and above - ground services; Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 i) Details of soil amelioration and decompaction within the RPAs of trees impacted by the works; j) The siting of site compounds, storage areas, mixing areas and contractor parking; and k) A schedule of post - construction monitoring and management measures. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the approved AMS. 8) Prior to commencement of development, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) setting out the long - term management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all hard and soft landscaping features. Soft landscape details shall include planting plan, specification (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and tree establishment), schedules of planting noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate, as well as any works to enhance wildlife habitats where appropriate. In addition, implementation timetables and maintenance programmes detailing all operations to be carried out to allow successful establishment of so ft landscaping, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA before development commences. Once approved, the landscaping shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved. 9) No development shall take place until details of any earthworks, including cross - sections and full topographical details demonstrating levels and contours, and details of working within the root protection areas of retained trees detailed within an A rboricultural M ethod S tatement as per Condition 7 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For context, cross - sections and topographical information shall include reference to immediately adjacent topography. 10) No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall include: a) A technical summary highlighting any changes to the design from that within the approved Flood Risk Assessment; b) Detailed drainage plans to include type, layout and dimensions of drainage features including references to link to the drainage calculations; c) Detailed drainage calculations to demonstrate existing runoff rates are not exceeded and there is sufficient attenuation for storm events up to and including 1:100 + climate change; d) Confirmation that sufficient water quality measures have been included to satisfy the methodology in the Ciria SuDS Manual C753; and e) Exceedance plans demonstrating the flow paths and areas of ponding in the event of blockages or storms exceeding design criteria. Once approved, the scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 11) Prior to commencement of development, details of the accessible link between Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 the site and the northern platform at Whitchurch Station shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include specifications for the design of the accessible entrance to ensure suitability for wheelchair users and confirmation that there are appropriate landowner permissions for the works to allow implementation. The footpath and accessible entrance shall be made available for public use prior to first operation of the car park and thereafter retained for that purpose. The details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 12) Prior to the erection of the café building , a scheme containing full details of arrangements for internal air extraction, odour control, and discharge to atmosphere from cooking operations, including any external ducting and flues, and necessary noise control measures determined in accordance with the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems (EMAQ 2018) document, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works detailed in the approved s cheme 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 approved beforehand in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 13) Notwithstanding the annotations and table on External Lighting Layout Dwg 1553 - WEL - XX - XX - DR - E - 7000 Rev C03 , prior to installation of the lighting scheme, a written scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority that specifies the provisions to be made for the level of illumination of the accessible footpath link within the railway embankment between the car park and northern platform. The level of illumination in this area shall be no mo re than 0.2 lux on the horiz ontal plane and 0.4 lux on the vertical plane above the baseline within this area of the site. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the operation of the car park and maintained for the lifetime of the approved development and shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. 14) Details for the long - term maintenance arrangements for the surface water drainage system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first use of the car park. The submitted details shall include m aintenance schedules for each drainage feature type and confirmation of ownership. Once approved, the scheme shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved details. 15) No development above ground level shall take place until a Tree Planting and Establishment Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The Plan shall include: a) The location, species, specification and size of all proposed tree planting; b) Details and cross - sectional drawings of tree planting pits, including soil specification, drainage, aeration and irrigation measures where applicable; c) Details of tree support and protection measures; d) A programme for implementation; and e) A five - year establishment and maintenance schedule. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 20 All tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Plan in the first planting season following completion of the development or such other timetable as approved in writing by the LPA. Any tree planted pursuant to this condition which dies, is removed, becomes seriously damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with a tree of the same species and specification, unless otherwise approv ed in writing by the LPA. 16) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of Condition 4 that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of Condition 4 has been implemented fully in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written approval of the LPA in advance of implementation). Unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA such verification shall comprise: a) As built drawings of the implemented scheme; b) Photographs of the remediation works in progress; and c) Certificates demonstrating that imported and/or material left in situ is free of contamination. Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the scheme approved under Condition 4, unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA. 17) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority certificates demonstrating that a) sufficient sampling of imported material has taken place and b) the imported material is free from unacceptable levels of contamination. Sampling shall take place in situ at a frequency of 1 per 100m 3 . 18) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until a Car Park Management Plan has be en submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include the following details: a) Details of car parking layout to include allocated areas; b) The proposed allocation and arrangement of parking spaces , including disabled blue badge bays; c) The provision of Electric Vehicle Charging Points ; d) A delivery plan for the car park, café and lockers; e) Car parking charges; f) The management responsibilities together with contact details (name , address , telephone , email); g) Maintenance arrangements; h) Enforcement measures; i) Management details of all soft landscape components where these fall within the areas covered by the Plan; j) Management details of all hard landscape elements where these fall within the areas covered by the Plan; k) Maintenance operations for both hard and soft landscape components summarised in chart format stating the frequency and duration over the Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 21 lifetime of the Plan; l) Cleaning operations including graffiti and fly - tipping removal pressure washing re - painting; m) Failed component re - design and installation liabilities/responsibilities/timings; and n) A scheme of review of the Plan to ensure that it remains relevant to the parking requirements of Whitchurch Station. The scheme of review shall be undertaken at five yearly intervals and shall not be more than ten yearly intervals. The car parking shall be provided and managed in accordance with the approved Plan thereafter, or as otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 19) Prior to first use of the electric vehicle car charging points, details of electric vehicle charging provision shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the specification, appearance and siting of any charging points. Once approved, the scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 20) All recommendations outlined in the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment report number 80769 - SRL - RP - YA - 002 - S2 - P1 shall be implemented and completed before the use, hereby approved, is first commenced and shall be thereafter retained and maintained, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 21) Development shall be undertaken in accordance with the Ecology Report dated December 2023 and Addendum Ecology Report dated July 2025 by Applied Ecology including the recommendations made at Section 4. 22) Following completion of archaeological fieldwork, a report produced in accordance with an approved programme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority setting out and securing appropriate post - excavation assessment, spe cialist analysis and reports, publication and public engagement. 23) The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) under C ondition 7 and shall be subject to supervision by a suitably qualified and experienced Arboricultural Clerk of Works (ACoW). The ACoW shall: a) Attend a pre - commencement site meeting with the developer, principal contractor and Local Planning Authority (if required by the Local Planning Authority); b) Oversee the installation of tree protection measures; c) Supervise all operations within the Root Protection Areas of retained trees; d) Monitor compliance with the approved A MS throughout construction; e) Undertake a post - construction inspection and attend a project completion meeting; and f) Submit written site supervision records to the Local Planning Authority of items a - c; at approved intervals as per the approved AMS for item d; and upon completion of development. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/25/3375485 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 22 No works within the Root Protection Area of retained trees shall take place unless the ACoW is present and has confirmed that the methodology accords with the approved AMS. 24) No development shall take place until the access point and visibility splays as shown in Site Access Arrangement Dwg ITB16002 - GA - 027 Rev C have been laid out and constructed in accordance with the relevant details shown on that drawing. Thereafter they shall be retained for that purpose and kept clear of obstructions .

⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned

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…

🔗 View on PINS Casework Portal 📋 LPA Ref: 23/03157/FUL

⚖️ 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.

→ Next steps

⚖️ Build your Appeal Pack 🧠 Pattern Browser — all refusal themes

📊 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.

🏆 Winning Arguments

Appeal Decision 3376692 (Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area *) — 2026-05-29

Appeal Decision 3375121 (Durham County Council) — 2026-05-29

Appeal Decision 3373696 (South Oxfordshire District Council) — 2026-05-29

Appeal Decision 3361685 (London Borough of Croydon) — 2026-05-29

Appeal Decision 3372038 (Cornwall Council) — 2026-05-28

Appeal Decision 3364602 (South Ribble Borough Council) — 2026-05-28

Appeal Decision 3376539 (Bedford Borough Council) — 2026-05-26

Appeal Decision 3375485 (Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council) — 2026-05-26

→ Next steps

🤖 Planning Agent