🏆 Winning Arguments

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

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

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

25. The appeal on ground (a) is that planning permission ought to be granted for the development undertaken. The main issues are: 5 • whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • the effect of the development in relation to the character and appearance of the area; • the significance of any contamination present on the site; • if the development is inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other co…

67. There are considerations which support the appeal. I attach significant weight to the lack of an up-to-date 5-year supply of housing land and to the provision of what are likely to be more affordable units of accommodation for rent. I attach very limited weight to local economic benefits. 68. The Council’s emerging Local Plan remains under examination at this stage. According to the Council’s delivery programme7, the target date for adoption of the Plan is December 2026, however it is uncertain whether this timescale will be achieved. The Council says that because of its emerging status, very limited weight ought to be given to the policies in that plan. There has been no information submitted that would lead me to take a different view. 69. I have also taken into account Policy S5 of the Framework. This states that where development in the Green Belt would not be inappropriate, proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework. There is no information before me leading me to conclude the development would be at odds with any nationa…

4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The development would provide two dwellings within an existing residential area which would contribute to the supply of housing within the borough and generate associated economic benefits. The proposal would deliver two dwellings each containing more than three bedrooms, therefore making a positive contribution towards the borough’s identified need for larger homes. This aligns with Policy SP2.7 of the LP which seeks to ensure that 30% of all new homes up to 2036 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3376538 comprise three or more bedrooms. Whilst these benefits would be limited due to the scale of the development, they nevertheless weigh in favour of the proposal. 39. In terms of adverse impacts, I have found that the proposal would not result in material harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, nor have I identified any other adverse impacts that would attract significant weight. Accordingly, the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development. Conclusion and Recommendation 40. The proposal would accord with the development plan, when read as a whole…

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an outline application

10. The main issues are: (a) whether the location, nature and scale of the proposal would be acceptable in a countryside location having regard to the spatial strategy of the development plan and the character and appearance of the area: (b) the effect of the proposal on the settings of Grade II listed buildings, known as The Hill, Oakley House and Oakley Coach House; (c) whether the proposal would minimise ecological impacts and provide net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures and incorporating features wh…

In particular, the boost in housing supply and the provision of AH would each attract substantial and significant weight, even with higher Council 5YHLS figure. Other benefits include the provision of accessible homes being of significant weight whilst the provision of POS, highway and sustainable transportation, social and economic benefits, and BNG would cumulatively be of great weight. Therefore, having regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable housing, the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the identified benefits. 88. There have been significant public objections to the proposal. The development plan benefits from statutory primacy but in this case, there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development concluded here. As a material consideration, this is sufficient weight, in this case, to indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, outline planning permission should be granted. Conclusion 92. For the reasons given above and having…

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an outline application,

I have no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the development is currently giving rise to drainage issues, and the appellant contends that a condition on drainage details is unnecessary on this basis, referring to the pool having been professionally installed. The Council does not object to a condition being imposed requiring the drainage details to be agreed. 36. The absence of evidence of harm does not remove the requirement for the development to demonstrate compliance with the development plan. Policy D9(iii) of the Local Plan requires the incorporation of sustainable design principles, including measures for climate change adaptation, which would encompass appropriate consideration of drainage. In the absence of sufficient detail demonstrating how foul and surface water is being managed, it cannot be concluded that the development accords with this policy. Given this, together with the Council’s position and the concerns raised, it is reasonable and necessary to impose a condition requiring the approval of these details to ensure compliance with the development plan policy. Conclusion 41. For the reasons given above, the appeal succeeds on ground (a), and I shall …

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

Consequently, it complies with the relevant objectives of BLP policy 37 which seeks development to provide attractive settings and to avoid any adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties by reason of noise and disturbance, loss of daylight/sunlight, loss of privacy or overshadowing, amongst other things. It is also consistent with Paragraph 135 of the Framework insofar as it seeks a good standard of amenity for all existing occupants of buildings. Conclusion on ground (a) 28. Overall, subject to conditions, the development does not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area nor the living conditions at neighbouring properties or existing residents with reference to noise and disturbance and amenity standards. The development therefore complies with policy 37 of the BLP and the Framework, which collectively seek to provide a high standard of private and public amenity space and respect the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties, amongst other things. Conclusion 30. Whilst the ground (d) appeal is unsuccessful, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed on ground (a). Planning permission will therefore be gr…

11. The associated hardstanding forms a narrow access road around the tennis court and creates an apron in front of the two garage buildings which are set at right https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/C3620/X/25/3369843 angles to each other. It does not seem excessive in size when it is designed to accommodate the two buildings and is clearly incidental to their use. 12. The status of the LDC that I shall issue has not been discussed, but it seems to me that it only confirms the lawfulness of the two buildings and hardstanding on 17 March 2025. At that date they were permitted development because they were incidental to the then dwellinghouse. The current building as I saw on site is in the process of construction and does not yet form a dwellinghouse and so has no permitted development rights. I do not think therefore the two buildings and hardstanding can now lawfully be constructed as the situation has changed radically since the date of lawfulness was ascertained. Once the new building is complete and has its own permitted development rights the two buildings could potentially be lawful, subject to them passing the tests of Class E. 13. I would say th…

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

The net addition to the housing stock would only be a single dwelling, but given the proven need, this would represent a benefit carrying substantial weight. In addition, it is said that the scheme would meet the specific needs of the appellant’s parents. I have no reason to doubt this, and as such I give this some modest additional weight. The development would also be likely to have some benefits for the local economy, and in the present case I again give this modest weight. 25. Having regard to NPPF paragraph 11(d), it is clear in my judgement that the limited harm that has been substantiated does not significantly or demonstrably outweigh the combined weight of the development’s several benefits. Indeed, on the contrary, it seems to me that the balance of these other material considerations is clearly weighted in favour of the development. 26. In summary therefore, I conclude that the appeal proposal is supported both by the development plan and by the balance of the other considerations. It follows that the appeal should succeed, and that planning permission should be granted. conclusion. The appeal is therefore allowed. J Felgate

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