🏆 Winning Arguments
Real PINS Inspector reasoning from appeals where refusals on Overdevelopment 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 Overdevelopment 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 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…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3370033 (Charnwood Borough Council) — 2026-05-26
📍 Charnwood Borough Council LPA code: E07000130 PINS reference: 3370033 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 10 - 12 February , 25 - 26 March , 30 March and 20 April 2026 Site visit made on 2 4 April 2026 . by Helen Hockenhull BA (Hons) B.Pl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 th May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 Land to the rear (west) of 83 Cotes Road, Barrow upon Soar, LE12 8JP • 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 William Davis Limited against Charnwood Borough Council. • The application Ref is P/23/1582/2. • The development proposed is o utline planning application for residential development including associated infrastructure and open space, demolition of 87 Cotes Road and refurbishment works to 83 Cotes Road, plus details of access. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for residential development including associated infrastructure and open space, demolition of 87 Cotes Road and refurbishment works to 83 Cotes Road, plus details of access at l and to the rear (west) of 83 Cotes Road, Barrow upon Soar, LE12 8JP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/23/1582/2, s ubject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. The appeal is submitted in outline with all matters reserved except for that of access. An Illustrative layout plan was submitted with the application. I have considered it on this basis. 3. After submission of statements of case but before the Inquiry commenced, the Charnwood Local Plan was adopted. The proofs of evidence were able to take this updated policy position into account. 4. The site forms the southern part of a residential allocation for 220 dwellings the subject of Policy DS 2 (HA49) in the recently adopted Charnwood Local Plan . A d evelopment b rief and c oncept p l a n for the whole allocation w ere also submitted w ith the application to comply with the requirement s of the policy. 5. The appeal was against a failure to determine the application . T he Council subsequently resolved that had it been able to determine the application it would have been refused for f ive reasons which in summary rel a t e to : • t he inadequacy of the c oncept p lan and the d evelopment b rief (Rev E) • e cology and b iodiversity • t he loss of protected and mature trees without mitigation Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 • d esign constraints and overdevelopment • the need to s ecur e necessary Infrastructure to mitigate the impact of development. 6. Within an agreed timeframe after the Inquiry, the appellant submitted a final completed section 106 agreement and Unilateral Undertaking. The se documents set out a number of provisions to come into effect if the appeal is allowed. I return to this later in my decision. 7. During the course of the appeal, a consultation on a revised National Planning Policy Framework ( the Framework) took place . There is nothing within the consultation which suggests policy might change in a manner which would require revisiting any of the issues set out below. In any event the consultation is at an early stage and any proposed changes to the Framework can carry no weight at this stage . Main Issues 8. The main issues in this case are: • Whether the c oncept m asterplan and d evelopment b rief achieve a comprehensive development for the wider allocation achieving high quality design in respect to access, open space, landscape, education, ecology and heritage. • Whether the proposed development represents high quality design and whether the site capacity is appropriate. • Whether the appeal proposal achieves an appropriate biodiversity net gain having regard to the biodiversity mitigation hierarchy. • Whether the proposed development protects and enhances the natural environment including existing trees on the site and whether appropriate mitigation is proposed. • Whether the proposed d rainage s trategy is appropriate to address surface water and avoid adverse impacts on the nearby Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and landscape character. • Whether the proposal provides the necessary Infrastructure to mitigate its im pacts with particular regard to the provis i o n of open space, education and off - site highway improvement works . Reasons Background 9. The appeal site comprises greenfi eld land of approximately 3.71 ha located to the rear (west) of 83 C otes Road , Barrow upon Soar . It encompasses the two vacant properties of no’s 83 an d 87 Cotes Road, their curtilages and land to the south west extending to the M idland Mainline railway which runs alongside the north west bank of the R iver Soar . Lime trees al ong the site frontage with Cotes Road are the subject of a group Tree Preservation Order. A large b lack p oplar tree in the centre of the site is s imilarly protected but unfortuna tely it suffered a catastrophic fa ilure during a storm just be fore t h e Inquiry began. The site also lies south east of Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 Railway Fields L WS and a public right of way runs along the southern boundary an d then through the western section of the site. 10. The appeal site lies at the southern end of a larger parcel of land all ocat ed for re s id ential development of 220 dwellings in Policy DS 2 (HA49) of the a do pted Charnwood Local Plan. The allocation comprises five development parcels in different ownerships. I shall refer to them as parcels A - E as described i n the submitted c oncept m asterplan. The appeal site is Parcel E . Two other parcels are the subject of outline planning applications for residential development which have yet to be determined by the Council. Th is includes Parcel D, immediately north of the ap peal site submitted by Ashbe r ry S trategic Land (Ashberry) and Parcel B further t o the north s ubmitted by St . Phillips Land Ltd (St . Phillips) , who are a R ule 6 party to this appeal. Concept Masterp lan and Development Brief 11. Policy DS2(HA49) requires that before outline planning permission is granted for the allocation or a n y part of it , a masterplan will be agreed which includes delivery and phasing arrangements for the whole allocation in order to achieve comprehensive development. It also requires a development brief , design code o r equivalent to be prepared to inform decisions on detailed planning applicat ions or reserved mat t ers applications to ensure a cohesive approach to design and ensure impacts are satisfactorily miti gated. 12. The appeal proposals include a c oncept m asterplan which is included within a d evelopment b rief . Whil st the policy requires the master plan to be agreed, the Lo cal P lan does not specifically state who it is to be agreed with. In my view it seems reasonable to conclude that the masterplan should be agreed by all landowners and the Cou ncil . Th is is the view of the app ellant and St . Philips Land . 13. The landowner for P arcel C has not engaged in the planning process to date. So that it cannot be said that all landowners are i n agreement. The owner of Parcel A did not respond to their invitation to collaborate on the masterplan but did respond at the planning application stage, raising no objection. 14. It is worth clarifying that the masterplan and development brief were prepared by consultants led by S t . Phillips through a joint instruction between the three active developers , the ap pellant , St . Phillips and Ashberry Strategic Land . The documents were th e n submitted to the Council in support of the respective outline planning applications in 2023. 15. Following negotiations with the Cou ncil, St . Phillips an d A sh berry have pro duced dif f e re nt iterations of the original brief and masterplan taking on board comments from the C ou nci l as well as further technical information . Most notably the Ashbe r ry m asterplan propose s vehic ular access to the appeal site through their land parcel , with the appeal site having no separate vehicular access. It does however show a ped e st rian /cycle / emergency access from the ap peal site onto Cote s Road . It a lso indicates a reduced capacity for the app ea l site of 55 dwellings . 16. The Cou ncil argues that on this basis, the re is no longer agr eement o n the masterplan by the active developers . However, it is not surprising that the individual developers have dif ferent views with regard their individual parcels as they seek to maximise the ir development potential. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 17. M asterplans are a framework to guide development. T hey are not meant to be r i g id fixed proposals but in stead flexible frameworks that accommodate different development scenarios . They should be living docum en ts , which can evolve with changed circumstances and more information following technical investigations . T he Cou ncil’s U rban D e sign witness in cross examination accepted that the re is nothing in national policy or guidance which ind icates that dev e l o p ment briefs cannot change and a feature of their use was that they evolve over t i me having regard to information available at later stages. 18. I acknowledge there is a r is k of different masterplans for different pa rcels of development that are materially different, contrary to t he p olicy objective of a masterplan ensuring a comprehen si ve and cohesive development . If o n e accepts the pre mise that the first approved masterplan and development brief becomes the starting point or the governing framework, further iterations from subsequent appli cations ca n be based up o n i t, still ensuring the objective of comprehensive d e vel opment. The task of achieving this and ensuring that t her e are not a series of conflicting masterplans but broad accordance, lies with the Cou ncil in determining subsequent applications . Taking this approach there should be no need for subsequent section 73 ap plications on parcels already granted planning permission . 19. I recognise that Policy DS2(HA49) does not envisage a series of masterplans and dev e l o p ment briefs. In an ideal situation , there would be one masterplan and development brief for the whole allocation, agreed by all parties and stakeholders, secured through planning conditions and legal agreements. H owever, that is not the position here. 20. St . Phillips Urban Design witness set out the collaboration that has taken place between the Cou ncil and the three active de ve lopers which has resulted in the submi ssion of five versions of the masterplan and development brief between No vember 2023 to August 2025 . Whilst the development brief ha s not been agreed by the Co uncil to date, it ha s been amended to take on board their comments. 21. T hrough the appl ication of Policy DS2(HA49) , the Council are expecting the five landowners to produce a masterplan and development brief. However, to require this with the respective landowners having different levels of current involvement , at different stages in the development process is very challenging. The Council have not prepared any guidance or design code for the allocation themselves. Indeed, the Barrow upon Soar Village Design Statement appended to the Neighbourhood Plan , provides no site - specific guidance but good practice urb an design guidance. 22. The approach put forward by the ap pellant and St . Phillips , with the masterplan and development brief being viewed as living documents that can evolve as the individual parcels come forward , seems to me to be a pragmatic solution to bring the allocation forward and build much need ed market and affordable housing in the Borough. 23. For the sake of clarity, s hould I allow the app eal, the approved masterplan and development brief for the app eal scheme, could no t in law, be binding on the other parcels in the allo ca tion. The y would however form material considerations for their determination . Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 24. The question I must now address is whether the submitted masterplan and development brief are f i t for purpose and comply with the requirements of Policy DS2(HA49). 25. The Policy requires the masterplan to include d e l ivery and phasing arrangements . Th e Phasing and Delivery Parameter Plan in the d evelopment b rief shows t he phasing arrange ment s are largely base d on the timing of the applications on the various parcels . This is not unacceptable . In fact, there is some logic in the ap peal scheme and the adjacent P arcel D, at the southern end of the all ocation being in the first phase of d e vel opment . I acknowledge that t he proposed phasing in the b rief does not take account of education capacity , unlike the Ashber r y b rie f which states that beyond the figure of 220 dwellings additional capacity w o u l d be needed. I do not consider that the brief specifically needs to address this , as this matter would be considered in a n y event through the development mana gement process . 26. The Policy also requires that the masterplan achieves comprehensive development . Ther e is no explanation in the Plan as to what this means, and I am not directed to any other definition in national policy or guidance . My view is that in essence it means consideration of connectivity both to and within the allocation site , a chieving a high quality of development with its own identity taking account of context , built form, movement, open spaces and biodiversity . 27. Policy DS4 of the adopted Local Plan seeks to ensure high quality design and provide s that planning permission will be refused for development that is n o t wel l designed , with reference to design methods such as Building for Healthy Life. (BfHL ) . The submitted d evelopment b rief includes a BfHL assessment and shows that against every metric , the b rief scores green. This contrasts with t he Cou ncil ’ s assessment which identifie s a number o f deficiencies . Clearly a development brief is a high - level document, and it may be more d ifficult to assess c ertain criteria than others wi th the level of detail available at this stage . I discuss th ese criticisms fu rther be low. 28. The Access and Movement Parameter Plan in the d evelopment b rief illustrates a primary street which is not continuous throughout the allocation . The Parameter Plan also shows that t he three northernmost parcels , A, B and C are in effect served by cul de sacs from multiple accesses from C otes Road. There is, however, pedestrian and cycle connectivity through the allocation . This provides an awkward break in the street hierarchy resulting in a fragmentation and lack of permeability. This ma t ter can however be resolved in the submi ssion of the re s p ective planning ap pli cations for Parcels A. B and C , for example by upgrading the s eco ndary street indicated o n the paramet e r plan to a primary route. 29. The Constraints and Opportunities P l a n points out the long views to Beacon H ill which can be achieved from the cemetery. The Build i ng Heights Par a meter Plan indicates up to two storey development at the south west boundary o f the cemetery . The Cou ncil expresses concern that d e velop ment of this height could adversely affect these views. Having looked at these o n site , I do not find that building s of thi s height would completely block these vi stas . Furthermore, up to two storeys does not mean that all the development in this location would be this height . O ne and half storey dwellings with accommodation in the roof space could be provided which further safeguards these views. This would be a matter for the Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 Cou ncil to consider further when a reserved mat t ers application on Parcel D comes forward. 30. The Landscape and Green Infrastructure Parameter Plan shows a hedge between Parcel A and B which is to be retained . It is however sandwiched between resi dential blocks . T her e are also breaks proposed within it to facilitate pedestrian / cycle connectivity . T he re is a risk that th is hedge w ould be compromised over time and w ould eventually be lost. Furthermore, t he open space provision is not policy compl i ant , overproviding natural an d semi natural spaces and fa iling to deliver parks and play provi si on particularly in re s p ec t to Parcel A . Again, this can be considered in more det ail when applications come forward on this parcel. 31. The d ev e l o p ment b rief acknowledge s the need for sensitive design by the c emetery . Whilst there is n o buffer indicated between the cemetery and the propose d housing block indicated on t h e m asterplan, t he car park extension to the southern end o f the ceme tery itself , acts as a buffer between residential development and the more reflective areas of the cemetery . F urther consideration can be given to the need for further measures to protect this sensitive area at detailed planning stage for Parcel D . The implications of development o n the setting of the locally listed chapels w ithin the cemetery is considered in a Heritage Report prepared by Ashbe r ry t o accompany their outline planning ap plication on Parcel D. Further consideration of this ma t ter can again be made at reserved matters stage. 32. In respect to the scheme before me in this a ppe a l, I am satisfied that due to t he mature landscaping on the boundary of the cemetery and the distance between the locally listed buil dings a n d the ap pea l s ite, t her e is no harm to their setting. 33. St . Phillips the Ru le 6 party have prepared an updated masterplan and d e vel o p ment brief to accompany their li ve outline app lication taking on board a number of the above criticisms . This demonstrates that a further iteration of the mas te rpla n and development brief can b e prepared that remains in broad accordance with the version submitted with this appe a l. 34. The criticisms raised by the Cou ncil relate to detailed design matters i n relation to individual parcel s . They are ma t ter s of planning judgment which are ca pable of being addressed at la ter stages in the planning process. It is pertinent to my consideration of this appeal, that Policy HA49 do e s not require the D e vel o p ment B rief to be agreed but to be prepared. To provide clarity and certainty , conditions could be imposed to require accordance with t he Key Site Wide Design Principles stated in the d evelopment b rief and broad accordance with the remaining content of the document ie the parameter plans and c oncept m asterplan . 35. In summary given the above, I am satisfied that the submitted masterplan and d ev elopment b rief are suffic ie nt to p rovide a framework to ensure comprehensive development across the allo cation , to mitigat e the impacts and to inform deci sion s on detailed planning applications or reserved mat t ers ap plications . They form living documents capable of being updated by the developers of the other parcels within the allocation and fulfil the requirement s of Policy DS2(HA49) . High quality design and overdevelopment 36. As o utline planning permission is being sought for up to 70 dwellings , i t is necessary for me to consider whether the site is capable of delivering that number Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 of dwellings , bearing in mind the site constraints and policy requirements . The se constraints include the trees on the site , access and connectivity, the need to mitigate biodiv er sity loss, open space provi si on, the public right of way crossing the site, drainage, noise from the railway line and the principles of good design . 37. In cross examination, the Cou ncil’s planning witness suggested that a capacity of 40 - 50 dwellings would be appropriate on the site. The witness increased the upper part of this range by 5 dwellings to 55 , to take account of the loss of the black poplar tree in the c entre of the site. 38. The a ppellant in evidence was keen to state that the figure of 70 dwellings had been ‘tested’ through the design process. However, there is no plan before me to show a scheme with 70 units laid out, the illustrative layout only shows blocks of properties. Equally, the Council’s suggested range of up to 55 dwellings is not supporte d by a layout plan. 39. The appellant’s urban design witness ex plained in ev id ence that taking account of site constraints, the net developable a rea equated to around 2ha , approximately 54% of the site . At a density of a round 30 - 35 dwellings per hectare, which is n o t out of keeping with the surrounding area , th is suggest s a site capacity of approximately 70 dwellings . The Council argues that t aking account of all of the trees which are the subject of tree preservation orders to be retained, the proposed attenuation pond, the existing group of trees on the northern boundary and the two retained dwellings, the net developable area of the site falls to less than 50% of the redline area. Whilst the Council’s estimate is less precise, it indicates only a relatively small difference between the parties . 40. I take account of other variables that impact on capacity. A ll parties agree that typologies and housing mix can make a difference , for example the provision of terraced housing or apartments . Capacity is also de pendent on the e x t en t to which a policy compliant scheme for replacement tr e es and biodiv er s it y improvement is provided on site or off site, a ma t ter I return to below. The above variable s suggest th ere is some flexibility. 41. The difference between the appellant ’ s and Council’s capacity estimates equates to 15 dwellings 1 . B ased on the evidence before me, consideration of the variables discussed above , together with the estimate s of the net developable area, I conclude that the site would h ave the capacity to provide up to 70 dwellings . 42. The Council has criticised t he submitted Illustrative Site Layout for a number of re asons . These are all r e lated to design issues such as the proxi mi ty of residential gardens to the southern boundary , the extent of cut and fill to cr e ate the atten ua tion pond , dwellings shown ba c king on to the atten ua tion pond rather than facing it for natural surveillance, and the proximity of the public right of way to rear gardens resulting in privacy loss raising security and safety issues. 43. T hese are all important de si gn matters. However, the illustrative layout is as the ti tl e suggest s , illustrative . It provide s a suggested layout, and i t i s not to be dete rm ined at this outline stage. Thes e ma t ters c a n all be considered in depth a t res er ved matters stage to ensure approp riate separation distances , green buffers , privacy and amenity for future resid ents as well as high quality design and 1 70 - 55=15 dwellings Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 materials. I f the se matters c annot be re s o l ved to the Cou ncil’ s satisfaction , it should re sult in the det ailed scheme being refused planning perm is sion. 44. Overall , I am satisfied that a high - quality design can be achieved in line with Policy DS4 of the adopted Local Plan and the Barrow upon Soar Neighbourhood Plan Policy BuS4 . Biodiversity net gain 45. There remain two areas of dispute between the Cou n c il and the app el lant, namely whether the BNG pro posals are realistic and achievable and whether the p r o po sal is an approp riate response to the ecological mitigation hierarchy. There is also dispute about the impact on the Catsick Marsh and Railway Fields LWS’s which I address separately in relation to drainage. 46. The appeal proposal is exempt f r om the mandatory 10% B iodi versity Net Gain (BNG) requirement under the Environment Act 2021 because the appli cation was submitted prior to February 2024. Nevertheless, the Framework in paragraph 187 d) seeks , amongst other things , to minimise impacts on biodiversity. Local Plan Policy EV6 also requires development proposal s to demonstrate how they have been designed to minimise ecological impacts . 47. T he appe lla nt ’ s revised Metric, which is agreed by the parties as a baseline valuation, demonstrates a net loss of 47.47%. This is a significant figure. It seems logical that reducing the capacity of the site would also reduce the habitat loss. However, I note that an earlier draft scheme for around 60 dwellings still resulted in nearly 40% habitat loss. In fact, it seems very unlikely that even with a scheme for 55 dwellings as suggested by the Council , that a significant net loss c ould be avoided. The question of wheth er a reduced quantum of d e ve lo pment could have produced a lower net loss o r more acceptable loss and how that was factored into design decisions is however irrelevant to my consideration . I must assess the scheme before me. 48. T he appe a l s ch e me proposes to retain and enhance the traditional orchard, a habitat of high distinctiveness . The vast majority of existing vegetation on the site boundaries is also retained. T he existing scrub habitat by the railway line is to be enhanced with the removal of ruderal vegetation such as nettles and s terile b rome. The northern boundary vegetation is also retained , apart f r o m a break within it to allow access to the Ashberry site , Parcel D . 49. It is agreed that mitigation for the loss of a barn owl roost and day roost for bats when the b lack p oplar t ree in the centre of the site failed would be incorporated into the scheme. Mitigation measures including the protection of habitats an d species during construction can be secured through the imposition of appropriately worded planning conditions. The attenuation pond is l ocated more than 20 metres from the LWS , complying with the recommended buffer detailed in the Council’s E cological Report submitt ed to the Lo cal Plan Examination . 50. The Illustrative Site Layout suggests that dwellings could back onto the southern site boundary where it is proposed to retain and manage the existing overgrown scrub and hedgerow. There is a risk that occupants may seek to extend their gardens or may tip grass cuttings over the fence resulting in the area ’ s degradation. I acknowledge that this can be difficult to enforce. However, the design and or height of the boundary treatment could deter such activity. This Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 could be considered further at reserved matters stage. An important consideration is that at t he other side of the boundary is the public right of way , which would ensure public surveillance of this area. 51. The Council also point to the possibility of further post development BNG loss in particular in relation to the grassland. The Council argue it will be difficult to maintain its ‘good quality’ . This is because maintaining the area with a variable sward height, can conflict with the need for short mown grass for recreational use. It may of course be possible to combine the two with different mowing regimes for different areas. I accept that trampling may also affect its condition, though some species are more tolerant of this than others. In any event, enhancements that could be achieved within the grassland areas are fairly small and not significant in terms of overall net gain. 52. The Ecological Mitigation Hierarchy provides a framework to avoid, minimise, restore or offset biodiversity loss. The Framework in paragraph 193 states that when determining planning applications , if significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused. Policy DS2 (HA49) of the Local Plan states in the supporting text that net gain should be achieve d on site rather than through off site contributions. Howeve r, the text also goes on to refer to Policy EV6, which provides for offsetting where appropriate. The question therefore is whether this is appropriate in this case. 53. In terms of a voidance , the originally submitted ill ustrative layout proposed the use o f the existing access to N o . 83 Cotes R oad. However, this would have require d the access going through the rear garden area and the traditional o rchard which is a h a b itat o f high distinctiveness . The scheme was then amended to avoid harm to this area, and a new access was pro posed f rom Cotes Road , though this would require the removal of a number o f TPO’d l i me trees . 54. I accept that there are limitations within the site to provide full mitigation for the anticipated loss of BNG. There are a number of reasons for this. The majority of the appeal site consists of low distinctive grassland, approximately 2.3 ha out of a tot al site area of 3.7 ha, over 62%. The retained modified grassland on the site is in good condition. It therefore has limited potential to increase its value. The nature of the green space on the site which is linear and fragmented reduces the opportunity f or large scale habitat creation. Furthermore, the necessary infrastructure such as the access and drainage reduces the area available for mitigation. Bringing all this together, t he appropriate way forward is therefore to provide both on - site and off - site mitigation , in line with Policy EV6 . 55. I acknowledge that ideally , a masterplan for the whole site would have been prepared which could co ns ider th e overall biodiv ersity l oss and provide for its mitigation within the al location as a whole . However, i t would have be e n difficult for the appellant to try to assess this , given the land ownership constr aints of the all ocation. What is important is that the appeal scheme mitigates its own impact . 56. The appellant proposes a compensation site at Rothley . This is a site within the appellant ’ s control and has planning per m i ssion for res idential development . The section 106 for this proposal requires an area of agricultural land to be set aside for agricultural use creating a green buffer separating Rothley and Mount Sorrel. The Biodiversity Impact Assessment Version 2 (Aug 2025 ) submitted with the Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 appeal, suggest s that in combination , the on - site pr oposals toge ther with the off - site measures would result in a net gain of 12.4% habitat units and 20.06% hedgerow units. 57. The appellant has confirmed that a condi tion requiring a Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Management Plan for the Rothley site has b e en discharged by the Cou ncil . Th i s includes improvements not accounted for in the offsetting proposals put forward in this appeal. The parties have put forward a draft planning condi tion re quiring an updated B iodiversity I mpact A ssessment to provide a baseline for both the ap peal site and the Rothley site and a demo nstration of how BNG would be achieved. The section 106 agreement supports this approach and requires a Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy which makes provision for both on - site and off - site mitigation including if necessary, purchasing biodiversity units and or paying a n offsetting contribution . I understand that a habitat bank is now available in Charnwood. 58. Bringing all the above together, I am satisfied that an appropriate mitigation strategy can be achieved by a combination of on - site and off - site measures. T he F ramework states that off - site mitigation should be a last re so rt , certainly after other opportunities have been exhausted. If there was a masterplan for the wh o l e site it may be that on site mitigation could be achieved . It seems to me that this is the int ention of the Policy . However, that is not achievable given the context and circumstances of this appeal. Accordingly, I find that with the imposition of an appropriate condition together with the ob ligation set out in the section 106 agreement, mitigation for the loss of BNG would be achieved . T he proposal would comply with Local Plan Policy EV6 and Policy BuS1 of the Barrow upon Soar Neighbourhood Plan which seek to ensure that development does not harm local ecological features and habitats . Trees and Mitigation 59. As previously stated , there are two Tree Preservation O rders on the site . The first protects a group of li m e trees on the site frontage . In order to facilitate the site access f r o m Cotes Road, five of these trees would need to be felled . The second TPO relates to a black poplar which failed just be fore the start of the Inquiry. There was dispute between the app ellant and the C ou n cil as to whether this tree should be classed a s a ve teran tree. S i nce it has failed, this is no longer an issue, but it is agreed that its replacement is required as part of the development proposal . 60. The appe a l scheme proposes the removal of a total o f 4 1 t rees . Th is includes both in dividual t rees and groups of trees. The a ppellant ’ s Tree Survey indicates that th ree trees to be removed are Category B , of moderate quality, four are Category U , unsuitable to be retained, and the remainder are C ategory C , of low value . 61. The C ouncil considers that the appellant’s Tree Survey , whi lst following the recognised methodology in BS 5837, downgrades a number of the trees , resulting in a large number of Category C specimens. The Council point to inconsistences and fallacies in the schedule , which they argue raises the question of the reliability of the survey as a whole. 62. It is inevitable that a n y assessment will include a degree of professional judgment and this may differ between individuals . Assessment of defects and the longevity of a tree can be subjective. I bear in mind that t he tree survey is a tool to aid Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 design and should be used in making balanced judgments about development proposals. 63. The Council make the case that putting the BS5837 to one side, visual amenity, age, place , identity, biodiversity and economic value all have an influence on the value of a tree and should also be considered . I agree that these other factors should be considered in the round in the design of a proposal. 64. The lime trees on the site frontage, five of which are to be removed to facilitate the pr oposed access are identified as Category C trees, of low value. The Cou ncil considers these should be graded Category B due to their group value . These trees have be en maintained as pollards. I note the appellant ’ s ev idence shows they were pollarded i n 2008 and overtime , due to the lack of maint enance , have re grown developing canopies which now need to be repolla r ded. 65. Having looked at the guidance for categories in BS5837, I am of the view that a ca se could be made for either category . Ultimately it is a matter of judgment . It is not necessary for my decision to conclude on this , as the issue here is one of amenity value. The five lime trees to be removed are located at the southern end of the group . Whi l st a smaller row of limes would result , they would still have visual amenity value as a group in the street scene and would still provide a screen to the existing dwellings . 66. I acknowledge that an access t o the a ppeal site cou ld b e obtained through the adjacent Ashberry site , removing the need for a separate access and the resultant loss of the lime trees. I understand that Ashberry has indicated a willingness to facilitate a ranso m free access to other parcels of the allocation , though the specific details are unclear and the app ellant ha s not been approached. Whether this could be achieved or not is not relevant , as I must determine the acceptability of the scheme before me . 67. The appellant has drawn my attention to t he Ashberry m asterplan , which not only illustrates a vehicular connection to the appeal site but also shows a ped es t rian , cycle and emergency access from the app eal site on to Cotes Road. This proposal would still require the removal of some of the lime trees . The difference in terms of tree loss w ould be one or two trees. T he loss of TPO’d trees to provide the site access clearly results in harm. 68. The Framework in paragraph 136 recognise s the important contribution that trees make to the character a nd quality of urban environments and amongst other things states that exi sting trees should be ret ained where possible. Policy EV 7 of the Charnwood Local Plan supports this objectiv e. Some removal is clear ly unavoidable. Ultimately the issue of tree removal is one for reserved mat t er s stage when the final layout is put forward . Ther e are opportunities for replacement tree planting on the site and the application of Pol icy EV7 provide s some flexibility for replacements off site. This would be a matter for the Cou ncil to consider in the determination of the reserved ma t ter s scheme . 69. Policy EV7 goes on to state that the Council w ill support developments that provide new tree planting including replacing any removed trees with at least three new trees. The application of this policy would require the appeal scheme to include the plant ing of around 12 3 trees . The ap pellant has indicated that they are able to plant around 50 new trees on the site, comprising street trees, trees in gardens and through landscaping including supplementary planting on the site Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 boundaries . I t is further proposed to plant around 100 new trees on the compensation site at Rothley. 70. Policy EV7 in the supporting text indicates a sequential approach to replacement tree planting , firstly within the site , in the vicinity of the app ea l site and thirdly through a commuted sum for tree planting elsewhere in the Borough such as a local park or area of open space. T he planting of additional trees on the compensation s i te would be in line with this policy approach . 71. I have regard to the fact that the appeal scheme is in outline and landscaping forms a reserved matter . S hould the ap pea l be allowed, approp riate conditions could be imposed to require the identification of trees to be removed and retained and th ose to be planted and also to require an updated arboricultural assessment and T ree P rotection Plan r e flecting the final layout and design of the development pro posed . The assessment of this matter and the compliance with Local Plan policy , is one for the Council at reserved matters application stage. 72. Given the above, I find that subject to appropriate planning conditions , the proposed development would, as far as possible, protect and enhance the natural environment and that appropriate mitigation would be proposed in line with P olicy EV7. Drainage Strategy and Impact on nearby Local Wildlife site 73. The Council ’s fifth putative reason for refusal raises concern t hat the drainage st r a te gy for the pro pos ed development could have an adver se impact on surface water runoff and the existing hyd r o lo gy regime . Th is would ca use harm to the Railway F ields LWS and the adjacent Catsick Marsh LWS to the north west of the site. The main areas of concern relate to water levels and water quality. 74. The appellant has submitted a hydrology review and a further report in rebuttal to the Cou ncil ’s evidence which considers how surface water is provided to the LWS, the contribution o f the ap pea l site and the i mpact of the proposed drainage strategy . The ap p e a l scheme pro pos es an attenuation pond which would store and then slowly release flows so that the overall volume of water leaving the site would be no le ss than existing greenfield flows. 75. The ap pellant calculates that the overall catchment serving the LWS is around 41.7 hectares , of which , the appeal site is approximately 3.7 hectares , under 9%. 76. A small ditch running south west from Cotes Road and into a natural valley provides the vast majority of water flow to t he LWS . I observed this on my site visit . Whilst surface water and ground water flows f rom the a ppeal site will also contribute , the vast majority of flo w s are from within the wider catchment and not the app eal site . 77. In line with best practice, peak flows are to be attenuated preventing rapid runoff from flooding the LWS’s. In a 1 in 2 - year rainfall event, the peak flow has been calculated to result in an increase of 1.1%. This is minimal. N aturally there can be fluctuations in rainfall and seasonal changes to water levels, which the plant communities in the LWS tolerate . Given the above, I do not consider that th e estimated changes in water flows would result in harm . 78. In terms of water quality , further measures are proposed. These include permeable paving and a perman en t wet basin to the atten uation pond to provide Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 sedim e nt ation a nd filtration . In addi tion, a 1 2 - metre - long bank of stone filled gabion mattresses would be provided to create a flow diffuser through filt ration . In larger storm events , flood water would overtop the gab ions and sp read out into the wooded slopes which would provid e further filtration , plant uptake and sedimentation the re by improving water quality. A betterment can therefore be achieved. 79. In summary, on the basis of the evidence before me I am satisfied that the pro pose d drainage strategy would not cause harm to the LWS’s. The scheme would therefore comply with the F ramework objective of protecting and enhancing biodiversity , Policy EV6 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy BuS1 of the Neighbourhood Plan . Infrastructure Education 80. There are three primary schools within a two - mile radius of the appeal site. Only one, Hall Orchard C of E Primary School is within the statutory walking distance. 81. The Education Authority do not seek dismissal of the appeal on education grounds subject to the necessary financ ial contributions towards primary, secondary , post 16, special education needs and early years provision. The concern relates to the remaining parcels on HA49 and the potential future issue if collectively the number of dwellings within the allocation exceeds those planned in the Local Plan. 82. The Local Plan allocates five sites in Barrow upon Soar for residential development . As a result of a deficit in primary school provi sio n in the locality, the need for a new school was id en tified. A St ate ment of Common Ground between the Co uncil and the developer s and site promoters of the five sites was submitted to support the examination process. It was agreed that the arrange ment s to be put in p l ace for the timing and funding of a new one form entry (210 place) primary school to be p r o vi ded on HA48, l an d off Willow Road , w ould be set out in an Educ ation Delivery Strategy . 83. The difficulty that now arises is that t h e three planning applications currently pending on th ree of the five parcels in the allocation, seek planning p e r mission for around 260 dwellings. When the other two parcels A and C are considered, the total number of dwellings on the allocation is approximately 340, well above the 220 allocated. This means that cumulatively, taking all the allocations in Barrow upon Soar, around 932 dwellings could come forward, with a potential deficit of 15 pupil places. 84. The Education Authorities’ calculation of the likely pupil yield assumes that all the dwellings that come forward w ould be two bedrooms . However, Local Plan Policy H1 seeks a mix of house types to meet local needs in line with up - to - date evidence. Table 6 sets out a requirement for up to 10% one - bedroom market dwellings , between 10 - 20% of affordable home ownership dwellings and between 60 - 75% of affordable rent dwellings to be single bedroom. In reality, to comply with Policy H1, the development would include more single bed dwellings, thereby resulting in a lower child yield. The Education Authorities calculation clearly represents a worst - case scenario. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 85. I accept that the percentages of single bed dwellings stated in the policy may not be feasible or practicable on the appeal site. The Council at the Education Round Table session gave the example of the Bloor Homes scheme on site H48 , where 6.3% one bed dwellings have been agreed. Applying that figure to all the allocations in Barrow upon Soar, there would be no deficit in primary school places. T his does not take account of falling birth rates, home schooled children, those attending independent schools an d those children from outside Barrow upon on Soar who are displaced , which could free up more pupil places. 86. Given the above, I am satisfied based on the evidence before me, that taking account of existing school places and the proposed new school, there is likely to be adequate primary school provision in Barrow upon Soar to accommodate the increased number of d wellings on the allocation together with the other residential proposals in the village. Local Plan Policy INF1 w ould therefore be complied with , in that the infrastructure needed to mitigate the impacts of development would be secured. 87. Notwithstanding the above, as my assessment in this appeal is based on the information available at this time, it would be necessary that any future applications for development taking the number of dwellings on HA49 above the 220 dwellings allocated, be r equired to demonstrate that there remains sufficient capacity in existing and planned primary education provision. 88. A cont ribution from the appeal scheme to wards school transport is required in the event that pupils need to be taken elsewhere pe nding the completion of the new p rimary school. This is included within the section 106 obligation. Open Space 89. The Cou ncil raise concern about the location of the open space on the appeal site, that it is too close to the railway line with the potential for noise and to o c lose to the attenuation pond . In terms of noise, I note that the Cou ncil’s Environmental Health Officer raises no objection to the scheme subject to a mitigation stra tegy . Should the appe a l be allowed, a suitably worded condi tion could be imposed to require the submi ssion of an Acoustic D esign S tatement to provide mitigation for a n y noise issues. 90. With regard to the proximity of open space to the attenuation pond , t he scheme is cu r r en tly i n outline, and the precise position of the open space has not been determined. A ny safety measures that w ould need to be installed can be considered further at reserved ma t ters s tage. To ensu re th e required minimum amounts and typologies of public open space are provided on the site in line with Policy EV9 of the Lo cal Plan , a suitable planning condition can be imposed. Off Site Highway Improvements 91. Off - site highway improvements are required to the A60/Barrow Road junction and also the provision of footpath improvements along Cotes Road heading south from the appeal site towards the village. There remains a dispute between the appellant and the Highwa y Authority as to the most appropriate mechanism by which these works can be secured, either by condition or through a planning obligation. 92. In regard to the A60/Barro w Road improvements , a condi tion is pro pos ed to require the submission o f a scheme . This is in principle agreed by all parties. The Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 specific wording of the condition is s till a mat t er of dispute, and I address this later in my decision . 93. Turning to the footpath improvements , I noted on my site visit that there is no footway to the village on the western side of Cotes R oad until north of Barrowcliffe Close . Ther e is however a footpath on the other side of the road, but this would require users to cross the highway . No crossing facility is proposed in the ap pea l scheme, but I note that one is put forward within the Ashberry proposals . This of course has not been approved and cannot be relied upon. 94. I ac knowledge that the footpath improvements would benefit all the future occupants of the allocat ion as a whole and it could be argued that all developers should contribute towards its cost. In the absence of a crossing facility to r each the footpath on the opposite side of Cotes Road , I take the view that the improvements are necessary to make the ap peal scheme acc e p table in planning terms and to promote a ct ive travel in line with the objective s of the F ramework and Local Plan P olicy INF2 . During the Inquiry, the ap pellant agreed to fund the full extent of the se footpath improvements . 95. The Highway Authority consider a condition should be imposed to secure the implementation of the se works. The a p pellant however favours a planning obligation and has drafted a Unilateral Undertaking which secures a financial contribution to deliver the scheme . I am aware that the Highway Authority i s concern ed that the costs o f design and implementation may exceed the contribution and that they will then be a t risk financially . This can however be resolved through the s . 278 agreement under the Highways Act . I find that a planning obligation is appropriate in these circumstances. A condition is also proposed to require the works be completed before occupation of any dwellings . This provides further certainty around its implementation. 96. The Unilateral Undertaking also includes an obligation in respect o f the implementation of site frontage footpath works to be completed before first occupation of any of the dwellings. This is necessary to ensure a continuous route for footpath users. . 97. Given the above, I am satisfied that the required off site highway improvements can be appropriately secured. The appe a l scheme therefore complies with the Framework and Local Plan Polic ies DS4 and INF2 which require developments to provide safe and suitable access for all users. O ther Matters 98. Po licy H6 of the L ocal P l an supports custom and self - build homes. In development s of more than 250 dwellings , the policy requires at last five serviced plots be provided. Should HA49 proceed and p rovide in excess of the 220 dwellings allocated, possibly up to around 350 dwellings , this p olicy would be en gaged. 99. However, t he parties agree that in respect of the ap peal pro posal, t her e is no requirement for the development provide self - build or custom build h ome s. I agree with this view. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 Planning Obligation 100. As I have already outlined above, t he appellant has submitted a completed section 106 agreement and a separate Unilateral Undertaking. 101. The section 106 agreement makes provision for obligations relating to a range of ma t ters. These include affordable housing and requirements for a highway connection from the appeal site to adjoining land to prevent a ransom situation. The agreement also requires a B iodiversity Mitigation S trategy and makes provi si on for on - site and off - site mitigation , the purchase of biodiversity units from a registered off - site biodiversity gain site and or the payment of an offsetting contribution. Provis ion is also mad e for f inancial contributions towards open space and outdoor sport, allotments, health, early years, primary, secondary, SEND and post 16 education , school transport , libraries, bus passes , travel packs and monitoring costs. 102. An additional obligation is a financial contribution to the Parish Council towards the cost of a new community centre in Barrow upon Soar . This facility is required tak ing account of the additional need arising from the cumulative growth in the village due to development put forward in the Local Plan. 103. T he Unilateral Undertaking is made by the appellant to the County Council to secure a financial contribution towards the cost of the off site f ootpath work s and to implement the site frontage footpath works . 104. I am satisfied that the above obligations meet the tests in the Framework and regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (as amended). They are needed to make the development acceptable in planning terms; are directly relate d to the development; and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind . I have therefore taken them into account in my decision. Planning Bal ance 105. The appeal proposal is located on an allo cated site within th e adopted Charnwood Local Plan . The principle of re sidential development on the site has been established . The site lies in a sustainable location with good access to services and facilities within the village. The pr oposal complies with Policy DS1 which sets out the development strategy for the Borough . 106. Allocation Policy DS2(HA4 9) has two parts. Firstly, it requires six criteria to be met then goes on to require a masterplan and dev elopment brief. 107. In regard to the first criteri on , I have determined that the scheme would ensure that surface water runoff would not detrimentally affect the LWS’s and would locate the SUDS feature at a sufficient distance away from them. In terms of the second criterion , t he appli cation is accompanied by a biodiv er s i ty and drainage strategy that demonstrates how the se issues are to be addressed. 108. Turning to the third and fourth criteria, the relationship to the cemetery and the need for a Design and Access Statement to set out how the development would mai ntain and enhance the significance of the heritage assets and their setting , th ese are not directly relevant to the appeal scheme due to its dis tance f rom this facility . Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 109. The f ifth criterion requires t he proposal is accompanied by a flood ri sk assessment wh ich has been provided . T he sixth criterion seeks a contribution to the provi si on of a new primary school which is secured through the planning obligation. 110. In summary , I am satisfied that the ap peal scheme complies with all six criteria in the first part of Policy DS2(HA49) as far as they are relevant to the appeal case. 111. With regard the second part of the Policy, I have discussed in detail issues regarding the c oncept m as t er plan and the dev elopment brief and found that the ap peal submission is appropriate at this stage . I t would secure a comprehensive development, deal with phasing and delivery, and adequately address the impacts . 112. I acknowledge that there is conflict with this part of Policy DS2 because the masterplan has n o t b e en agreed by all parties . Howe ver h aving regard to the circumst ances of this ap peal and the land ownership constraints , I take a pragmatic approach. T he submitted mas te rplan and development brief are living documents , later ap plications on other parcels of the allo cation can provide further iterations of the se doc uments taking account of more detailed information available . The c oncept m asterplan and d evelopment brief comply with the policy read as a whole . They also comply with Policy DS4 and Barrow upon Soar Neighbourhood Plan Policy B uS4 , as a high - quality design can be achieved. 113. Policy EV1 of the Local Plan protects the landscape character of the Borough and seeks to enhance it. Ther e will clearly be some landscape harm as a result o f the development b ut due to the containment of the site and the provi si on o f existing and proposed planting , this would be highly localised. Bearing in mind the site forms an allocation in the Lo cal Plan , the weight given to this harm is limited. 114. I have found that the proposal complie s with Policies EV6 of the Local Plan and Policy BuS1 of the Neighbourhood Plan in re la tion to biodiversity and Policy EV7 regarding trees . This is subject to the imposi tion of appropriate conditions and the requirements of the planning oblig ation to secure on site and off site BNG . The loss of TPO’d trees to facilitate the site access causes harm . Whilst this weighs against the pro posal , it is tempered by the fact that the access in this location protects the traditional orchard, a high distinctiveness habitat . 115. Furthermore, the prop osal complies with Policy EV9 in that it would provide a suitable amount and type of public open space , subject to appropriate conditions and the section 106 agreement . In ter ms of infrastructure pro v i si on, in particular education and off - site highway improvements , I have found the scheme is acceptable and complies with P o l i cy I N F1. 116. With regard to housing delivery a n d supply, t he Cou ncil can demonstrate a 5.01 - year s supply of deliverable housing land . I agree with the ap pellant that this is marginal, but it is still over the five years required by national planning policy . 117. The G overnment has delayed the publication of the 2024 H ousing D elivery Test (HDT) but has publ ished the raw data. The ap pellant argues that based on their calculations, this data engages the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the til ted balance . 118. However, paragraph 80 of the Framework is clear that the HDT consequences apply the day after the annual publ ication of the test results. As this has n ot occurred, I must have regard to the 2023 results . T he tilted bal ance does not Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 therefore apply. I acknowledge though that the data suggests a worsening picture in the Borough and forms a material consider ation . The contribution of the appeal proposal bo th t o m arke t and affo rdable h ousing weigh in favour of the appe a l. 119. I have considered whether allowing the appeal would prejudice the delivery of the re mainder o f the allo ca tion. The app ea l site forms the southernmost parcel, and it does not rely on a n y other parcel co ming for ward for it to be developed. Furthermore, the scheme can appropriately mitigate its own impacts. I am satisfied that the submitted c oncept m asterplan and the d evelopment b rief w ould provide the basis for a comprehensive sust ainable development for the whole allocation , which can evolve as the other parcels come forward . Therefore, I am satisfied that allowing the appeal would not prejudice the delivery of the wider allo cation, securing much needed market and affordable homes in the Borough . 120. In summary , I find that having regard to the minimal harms identified, the app ea l prop osal complies with t he relevant policies of the d e vel o p ment plan when read as a whole . The material considerations in this case do not indicate that the scheme should be determined other than in accordance with it. Th e appe a l should therefore be allowed. Conditions 121. The Council and the appellant agreed a set of conditions that were discussed at the I nquiry. I have considered all the conditions in light of the advice within the Framework, and I have revised some of them to avoid duplication or in the interests of clarity and enforceability. 122. It is necessary to impose conditions setting out time limits for development and the submission of reserved matters. (conditions 1 and 2). 123. Condition 3 which relates to the approved plans, the masterplan and development brief is in dispute between the parties. I agree with the parties that the appeal scheme should accord with the Key Site Wide Design principles in Rev E of the d evelopment b rief and be in broad accordance with the remainder of its content. 124. The parties disagree on whether the proposal should be in broad accordance with the Illustrative Site Layout . Whilst layout is a reserved mat t er and not to be approved at this outline stage, this plan has been the subject of much scrutiny during the appeal. It provides an illustration of how the Site Wide Design Principles could be applied. It is unlikely that a very different scheme could be forthcoming taking account of the position of the access, which is to be approved at this outline stage, the need to connect to Parcel D and the most suitable location for the atten ua tion pond on the lowest part of the site . I do not therefore consider it necessary to require that the reserved matters scheme be in broad accordance with the Illustrative Site Layout. 125. In the interest of protecting the character of the landscape and the amenity of new residents, condition s are necessary to seek details of ground levels and finished floor levels as well as boundary treatment s and any retaining structures (conditions 4 and 6). Condition 5 is required to secure th e submission of an approp riate landscaping scheme at reserved matter s stage. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 126. To ensure the protection of existing tree s and hedgerows, condition 7 requires an updated Arboriculture Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Statement at reserved matters stage. 127. Condition 8 which relates to the protection of existing trees and hedgerow is in dispute between the parties . As landscaping forms a reserved matter, it is not necessary to impose a condition retaining all trees on the site , with the exception of those to be removed for the site access , unless otherwise agreed by the Council. It is however approp riate and necessary to impose a condition protect ing all trees identified to be retained in the submitted tree survey , and secure their replacement should they die, be damaged or diseased within five years of scheme completion. 128. Condition 9 is necessary to secure an appropriate scheme of open space for future residents. As part of a reserved matters application, schemes illustrating the housing mix, accessible and adaptable homes and adherence to the nationally Described Space Standards are necessary . This is to ensure the development is of an appropriate standard and complies with Local Plan Policies H1, H2 and H3. ( conditions 10, 11 and 12). 129. In the interests of biodiversity and ecology, condition 13 requires an updated Biodiversity Impact Assessment as part of the reserved matters submission and c ondition 14 is necessary to require an updated ecological assessment . For the same reason , condition 15 requires details of a compensatory barn owl nesting box and condition 16 requires a pre commencement survey for badgers. Further conditions are necessary to secure a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan, and a scheme for bat and bird boxes (conditi ons 20 and 22) . 130. Condition 17 is necessary to require an A coustic Design S tatement to protect future occupiers from noise from the railway line and other sources. To safeguard future users of the site from land contamination, conditions are required to secure site investigations, remediation and verification and to address any unforeseen contamination that may arise during the development (Conditions 18 and 19) . 131. A Construction Environmental Management Plan is necessary to minimise the environmental impacts of construction on local amenity, biodiversity and the surrounding area (Condition 21). 132. In the interests of highway safety , condition 23 requires the access arrangements including frontage footway to be provided before the dwellings are occupied. For the same reason Condition 24 is necessary to secure the off - site highway works. 133. The intentions around the existing dwelling No . 83 Cotes Road are unclear, whether it is to be retained as a separate unit and if it is, whether the existing access is to be retained. Condition 25 is necessary to seek confirmation of what is proposed and permanently stop up the existing access if that is subsequently proposed for highway safety reasons . 134. C ondition 26 require s a scheme of off - site highway improvement works at the A60/Barrow road junction to be agreed and implement ed . The wording of the condition is in dispute, in particular whether it is necessary to state that notwithstanding the plan included in the Transport A ssessment , a new highway improvement scheme should be submitted and agreed . The pl an shown in the T ransport Assessment is an image of a signalised mitigation arrangement which Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 20 forms part of the Bloor Homes a ppl i c ation , ref P22/1254 / 2. Whilst this plan has not been submitted as part of this appe a l, it is referred to in evidence. In the interests of clarity, I consider it is necessary and appropriate to refer to this plan in the condition . 135. Condition 27 is necessary to seek a travel p lan promoting sustainable travel. 136. A series of conditions are necessary to ensure a suitable surface water drainage scheme, to manage surface water during construction, safeguard rail infrastructure, and ensure the drainage scheme is maintained (Conditions 28, 29, 30, 31). The Council sugg ested a further condition relating to the management of surface water during construction. I do not impose this as it duplicate s other conditions. 137. A condition to require a sustainability strategy is necessary to ensure sustainable construction principle s are applied in accordance with Policy CC4 of the L ocal P lan. I impose the appellant ’s suggested wording as it is more concisely worded and still meets the objective of the policy. 138. Finally, I impose condition 33 to ensure that a bespoke compensation strategy is provide d for the irreplaceable habitat provided by the black poplar tree in the centre of the site which has failed. 139. I do not impose a condition requested by the Council for a Boundary Green Infrastructure Protection Plan including a minimum 5 metre separation distance between all residential plots and each retained hedgerow , tree , woodland and orchard feature. I have been provided with insufficient evidence to justify this condition and explain its necessity , in particularly the separation distance. Whilst I appreciate the desire to protect boundary landscaping, this can be achieved though consideration of the site layou t and the landscaping scheme to be submitted at reserved ma t ters stage . C onclusio n 140. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I allow this app eal. Helen Hockenhull INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 21 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Paul T ucker KC and Constanze Bell , Instructed by Louise Ward, Head of Counsel Planning, William Davis Homes Ltd They called Ben Hunter BA DipMS Associate Director, Education Facilities Management David Kemp BA (Hons), Urban Design Associate Director, Dual MArch, MRTPI Marrons Planning Ltd Richard Hall BA(Hons) DipUP MAUD MRTPI Managing Director, Planning and Design (UK) Ltd Tony Goddard BEng(Hons) CEng MICE Director, BSP Consulting Steven Webber BSc (Hons) CEcol MCIEEM Associate Director, RammSanderson Ecology Peter Wharton BSc(Hons) FArborA MICFor Director and Principal Arboriculture Consultant, Wharton Natural Infrastructure Consultants Ben Cook BSc MSc MRTPI Associate Director, Savills (UK) ltd Karen Howard Par t ner, Gateleys Solicitors (s.106 session only) FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY : Daniel Henderson , Counsel Instructed by Kathryn Harrison, Principal Solicitor, Charnwood Borough Council He called : Liam Ward MSc MRTPI P rincipal Planning Officer, CBC Rupert Simms MSc ACIEEM Principal Ecologist, CBC Dr Stefan Kruczkowski BA (Hons) Dip TP Urban Design Consultant Dominic Waller BSc PGDip MArborA Senior Tree Officer, CBC Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 22 Leicestershire County Council (LCC) – Rule 6 Party Douglas Edwards KC , Counsel Instructed by Oliver Meek Interim Head of Planning, Historic and Natural Environment, Leicestershire County Council He called: Sharon Townsend BA(Hons) School Place Planning Officer Adrian Whiteman BEng (Hons) MCIHT Principal Transport Planner St . Philips Land L imited - Rule 6 Party Peter Goatley KC , Counsel Instructed by Tobin Byers, Counsel for Lichfield’s He called: James de Havilland BSc (Hons) MRTPI Urban Design Director, Stantec Other Interested Parties Christine James Barrow upon Soar Parish Council Tracey Filsell Local resident Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 23 DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE INQUIRY I D 1 Appellant’s Opening Submission ID2 LPA Opening Submissions ID3 St . Philips Opening Submissions ID4 LCC Opening Submissions ID5 Drone photograph of Tree G36 - Feb 2026 1 ID6 Drone photograph of Tree G36 - Feb 2026 2 ID7 Drone photograph of Tree G36 - Feb 2026 3 ID8 Draft a greement p ursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ID8a D raft S106 Agreement as proposed to be revised - March 2026 ID9 Draft Unilateral Undertaking Pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ID9a Draft Unilateral Undertaking – revised - March 2026 ID10 Historic Environment Desk B ased Assessment Part 1 by Landgage Heritage ID11 Historic Environment Desk Based Assessment Part 2 by Landgage Heritage ID12 Site Access & Frontage Delivery drawing ID13 Proposed Off Site Footway Delivery drawing ID14 Tree Retention & Removal Plan – Access Only ID15 Hydrology Roundtable Agenda ID16 Hydrology Roundtable Report by BSP consulting, 3 March 2026 ID17 BSI Standard - BS5837 - 2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction ID18 BNG Metric v4 March 2026 ID19 Arboriculture Roundtable Agenda ID20 Draft c onditions v10 ID21 Draft co nditions v11 ID22 SoCG CBC and Appellant v14 signed ID23 SoCG Arboriculture and Ecology – V6 ID24 SoCG Ecology – V7 signed ID25 SoCG Arboriculture – V2 signed ID26 CBC List of appearances Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 24 ID27 Appellant List of appearances ID28 LCC List of appearances ID29 (Not Used) ID30 Inquiry Timetable – March 2026 ID31 Final Draft Planning Conditions ID32 Closing Submissions - Leicestershire County Council ID33 Closing Submissions - Appellant ID34 Closing Submissions – St . Phillips ID35 Closing Submissions - Charnwood Borough Council ID36 S106 Planning Agreement – Final draft version before signature DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AFTER THE INQUIRY ID37 Final completed and signed section 106 agreement dated 11 May 2026 ID38 Final signed Unilateral Undertaking dated 11 May 2026 Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 25 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission and the development hereby permitted shall take place not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. 2) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale , "the reserved matters" shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved. 3) Unless where required or allowed by other conditions attached to this permission, the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following plan and d ocument: • Site Location Plan - 21.041/04 A • ‘Key Site Wide Design Principles’ from Development Brief Rev E a nd in broad accordance with: • the remaining content of Development Brief Rev E 4) The details submitted pursuant to condition 2 shall include full details of existing and proposed ground levels and finished floor levels of all buildings relative to the proposed ground levels. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 5) The layout and landscaping details submitted pursuant to condition 2 shall include: a) the treatment proposed for all ground surfaces, including hard surfaced areas; b) planting schedules across the site, noting the species, sizes, numbers and densities of plants and trees ; c) finished levels or contours within any landscaped areas; d) any structures to be erected or constructed within any landscaped areas including play equipment, street furniture and means of enclosure ; e) functional services above and below ground within landscaped areas ; and f) all existing trees, hedges and other landscape features indicating clearly a ny to be removed. 6) The details submitted pursuant to condition 2 shall include details of: a) a ll proposed boundary treatments, including fencing, walls, and planting; and b) e xisting and proposed site levels, including finished floor levels of buildings and the design, height, and materials of any retaining structures required to facilitate changes in level. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 26 7) The reserved matters application(s) shall include an updated Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan, and Arboricultural Method Statement, reflecting the final layout and design of the development. These documents shall demonstrate how retai ned trees and hedgerows will be protected and managed throughout the construction process and shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority as part of the reserved matters submission. No development, including site clearance or preparatory works, shall commence until the approved tree protection measures have been implemented in full. The protection measures shall be retained and maintained for the duration of the construction period. 8) Any tree or hedge to be retained within the application site boundary (as shown on Indicative Layout and Preliminary Tree Protection Plan (Ref: JH - TPP Dated May 2025, as shown at Appendix C of the submitted AIA Report Ref: JH0525COTESRD Dated May 2025 or a ny subsequent plan as approved under condition 8) shall be maintained at all times. Any tree or hedge dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased during construction or within five years of completion shall be replaced within the next pla nting season with specimens to be agreed in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. 9) The details submitted pursuant to condition 2 shall include the following minimum amounts and typologies of open space: • Parks & Amenity space (minimum 0.24 ha) • Natural & semi - natural open space (minimum 0.34 ha) • A LEAP facility and an equipped young people’s facility (minimum combined area 0.04 ha) 10) The details to be submitted pursuant to condition 2 shall include a housing size (number of bedrooms) mix for market and affordable homes that reflects up to date evidence of housing need in the Borough. 11) As part of any r eserved m atters application relating to layout and housing mix, a schedule shall be submitted identifying the plots, and the house types that will be constructed to meet the requirements of Building Regulations Approved Document M, Volume 1, Requirement M4(2) (acce ssible and adaptable dwellings). The schedule shall demonstrate that no less than 10% of the total number of dwellings will be constructed to meet M4(2) standards. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule . 12) The details to be submitted pursuant to Condition 2 shall demonstrate that all residential units comply with the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS). Where any deviation from the NDSS is proposed, the submitted details shall include clear and robust justification demonstrating how the scheme continues to achieve an appropriate standard of internal living space consistent with the intent of Local Plan Policy H3. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 27 13) The reserved matters application(s) shall be accompanied by an updated Biodiversity Impact Assessment (BIA), prepared in accordance with the most recent version of the DEFRA Biodiversity Metric. The BIA shall: a) e stablish the baseline biodiversity value of the application site; b) w here off - site biodiversity gain is proposed, establish both the baseline and projected post - intervention biodiversity value of both any on site provision and that provided by the off - site location; c) d emonstrate how the development will achieve biodiversity net gain, including details of habitat creation, enhancement, and long - term management both on - site and off - site. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved BIA and any associated biodiversity gain measures. 14) The reserved matters application shall be accompanied by an updated ecological assessment, prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist, to reflect the final layout and current site conditions. The assessment shall address the recommendations and mitigation proposals set out in the Ramm Sanderson report on “Aerial Tree Climbing Inspections for Roosting Bats and Barn Owl” (dated 3rd July 2025 ), and shall include updated species surveys where necessary. It shall set out appropriate and proportionate mitigation, enhancement, and management measures to ensure the protection and conservation of protected and priority species. 15) The updated ecological assessment submitted pursuant to Condition 1 4 shall include details of a compensatory barn owl nesting box, including its specification, exact location on a retained tree or suitable pole, and confirmation that the location minimises disturbance, with installation carried out in accordance with up to date best practice guidance published by the Barn Owl Trust (or equivalent recognised guidance). The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved ecological recommendations and the barn owl nesting provision, which shall be installed prior to first occupation of any dwelling. 16) No development shall commence, including any site clearance or preparatory works, until a pre - commencement survey for badger activity has been undertaken and the findings submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The survey shall be carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist no more than three months prior to the commencement of development. If active badger setts or signs of activity are identified, a mitigation strategy shall also be submitted and ap proved, and the developme nt shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved mitigation measures. 17) As part of any r eserved m atters application relating to layout or design, an Acoustic Design Statement (ADS) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The ADS shall incorporate and respond to the recommendations set out in Section 5 of the Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Omnia (Ref: C10942/NCA/1.0, dated May 2023). Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 28 The ADS shall demonstrate how noise impacts from existing and proposed sources have been assessed, mitigated, and minimised through site layout, building orientation, and design measures. It shall confirm that significant adverse effects will be avoided an d that the development will achieve appropriate internal and external noise levels in accordance with BS 8233:2014. The ADS shall include plot - by - plot details of necessary screening, glazing, and ventilation specifications to ensure compliance with acoustic standards within habitable rooms and shall identify mitigation measures for external amenity areas. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the approved ADS. 18) As part of any r eserved m atters application, a Phase II site investigation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The investigation shall be informed by and respond to the findings and recommendations set out in the Phase I Study Report prepared by GeoDyne (Ref: D41047, dated 12/04/21). The Phase II investigation shall assess the nature and extent of any land contamination on the site, including a risk assessment specific to the proposed development. The report shall be prepared in accordance with a methodology agreed with the l ocal p lanning a uthority and shall include a scheme of necessary remediation measures identified as required to make the site suitable for its intended use. The scheme shall include details of proposed remediation measures, implementation timescales, and verification procedures. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved remediation scheme. 19) If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended until: a) additional measures for the remediation of the site have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and b) a verification report for all the remediation works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Occupation of the site shall not commence until the approved remediation scheme verification report has been approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. 20) A detailed Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority, in consultation with Network Rail, following the approval of the first reserved matters application/s pursuant to ‘layout’ and ‘landscaping’, but prior to the commencement of development. The LEMP shall accord with the approved landscaping detail s and shall include long - term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all public open spaces, ecological mitigation areas and surface water drainage systems. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved LEMP. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 29 21) No development shall commence, including any site clearance or preparatory works, until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The CEMP shall include, but not be limited to, details (including timing for their provision) of: • c onstruction working hours; • s ite access and haul routes; • m easures to control noise, dust, vibration, and light spill; • p ollution prevention and spill response procedures; • p rotection of retained trees, hedgerows, and habitats; • w aste management and recycling; • s ite compound and material storage arrangements; • c ommunication strategy with local residents; • r oles and responsibilities for environmental management; • d etails of the routing of construction traffic; • w heel cleansing facilities; • v ehicle parking facilities, and • m easures to protect and manage Public Right of Way Footpath I15 during construction The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP. 22) Any application for approval of reserved matters shall include full details of a scheme for the location of bat and bird boxes, to be integrated into buildings. Thereafter and prior to the first use or occupation of any building with a bat or bird box, the bat and bird boxes shall be installed on that building in accordance with the approved details. 23) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until such time as the access arrangements and visibility splays shown on Proposed Access Arrangement (Drawing CRBS - BSP - XX - XX - D - H - 001 Rev. P05) and Proposed William Davis Site Access and Frontag e Footway Delivery (Drawing CRBS - BSP - XX - XX - D - H - 003 Rev. P04) have been carried out and completed in full. 24) No part of the development shall be occupied until such time as the offsite works shown on the Drawing CRBS - BSP - XX - XX - D - H - 004 Rev. P03 has been carried out and completed in full. 25) Pursuant to Condition 2, with the first application for approval of r eserved m atters, the applicant shall provide to the l ocal p lanning a uthority a written statement confirming: a) whether the dwelling known as 83 Cotes Road is to be retained as a separate planning unit; and b) if so retained, whether access to that dwelling is to continue to be taken solely from its existing means of access onto Cotes Road. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 30 In the event that the applicant confirms either that: i. 83 Cotes Road is not to be retained as a separate dwelling; or ii. 83 Cotes Road is to be retained but its access is to be derived in whole or in part from the internal access arrangements serving the development hereby permitted, then the existing means of access from Cotes Road serving 83 Cotes Road shall be permanently stopped up and closed. Details of the method, design and timing of the closure shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The approved closure shall thereafter be implemented within one calendar month of the new site access shown on Drawing CRBS - BSP - XX - XX - D - H - 001 Rev. P05 first being brought into use. 26) Notwithstanding the submitted details shown in ADC drawing ADC2254 - DR006 - P8, ‘A60 / Barrow Road Improvement’, as shown within Image 7.1 of the BSP Consulting Transport Assessment (reference CRBS - BSP - ZZ - XX - RP - H - 0003_Transport_Assessment), no part of the de velopment shall be occupied until such time as the details of a highway improvement scheme at the A60 / Barrow Road junction have been submitted and agreed in writing with the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The scheme will be implemented in full in accordance w ith a timetable to be agreed with the l ocal p lanning a uthority. 27) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be first occupied until a framework Travel Plan which sets out actions and measures with quantifiable outputs and outcome targets has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. Thereafter the agreed Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 28) Details submitted under condition 2 above shall be include a surface water drainage scheme. The submitted details shall be broadly in accordance with the recommendations of the submitted Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy (BSP Consulting CRBS - BSP - ZZ - XX - RP - C - 0001 - P04 dated 26/03/25) and shall include: a) c onfirmation that the attenuation pond will be constructed a minimum of 30 metres from the railway boundary; b) c onstruction specifications for the attenuation pond, hydro brake and gabion outfall, including a series of cross sections clearly illustrating existing site levels and proposed finished levels following completion of the engineering works; c) a landscaping scheme for the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the railway, to be planted prior to first occupation of the development; d) l andscaping and boundary treatment details for the pumping station and for the attenuation basin and its embankments; and e) a n assessment of the hydrological and ecological impacts upon the Railway Fields Local Wildlife Site The development must be carried out in accordance with the approved details, following consultation with Network Rail. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to first occupation of the development. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 31 29) Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Surface Water Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority, in consultation with Network Rail. The plan shall: a) i dentify potential risks of increased surface water runoff during the construction phase. b) s et out mitigation measures to manage those risks. c) i nclude arrangements for Network Rail to review and comment on the plan. In addition, Network Rail shall be granted access through the site at all times during construction and operation to inspect and maintain boundary fencing and other lineside features. Details of access arrangements shall be agreed with the l ocal p lanning a uthority prior to commencement. 30) No occupation of the development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as details in relation to the long - term maintenance of the surface water drainage system within the development have been submitted to and approved in wr iting by the l ocal p lanning a uthority, in consultation with Network Rail. The surface water drainage system shall then be maintained in accordance with these approved details in perpetuity. 31) No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as infiltration testing has been carried out (or suitable evidence to preclude testing) to confirm or otherwise, the suitability of the site for the use of infiltration as a drainage element, and h a s been submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority, in consultation with Network Rail. 32) The details submitted pursuant to Condition 2 shall include a Sustainability Strategy for the development hereby approved. The Strategy shall demonstrate how sustainable design and construction principles have been incorporated into the design, layout and delivery of the development and shall include, as a minimum, an assessment of the proposed development against each of the requirements of Local Plan Policy CC4 (Sustainable Construction). 33) No development (including site clearance, preparatory works, or any operations connected with the development hereby permitted) shall commence until bespoke compensation for the irreplaceable habitat represented by tree group G36 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The scheme shall: a) provide a bespoke compensation strategy, proportionate to the nature and scale of the impact of the loss of the habitat at tree G36, and consistent with national guidance for irreplaceable habitats. b) Include: • long term habitat management; • monitoring and reporting; Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/25/3370033 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 32 • the mechanism for securing delivery The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the approved scheme, and the approved compensation measures shall be retained, managed and monitored for the duration specified within the approved strategy.
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3375462 (London Borough of Croydon) — 2026-04-30
📍 London Borough of Croydon LPA code: E09000008 PINS reference: 3375462 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 February 2026 by C Coles MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 April 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/L5240/W/25/3375462 Hampton , Hawkhirst Road, Croydon , Kenley CR8 5DL • 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 Mr Jack Carvall of Carvall Homes against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Croydon. • The application Ref is 25/01540/FUL. • The development proposed is d emolition of existing dwelling and garages; erection of a two - storey development with roof accommodation comprising 7 family dwellings; provision of parking spaces, refuse and recycling stores, secure cycle parking and soft landscaping. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for d emolition of existing dwelling and garages; erection of a two - storey development with roof accommodation comprising 7 family dwellings; provision of parking spaces, refuse and recycling stores, secure cycle parking and soft landscaping at Hampton , Hawkhirst Road, Croydon , Kenley CR8 5DL in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/01540/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matter 2. The London Borough of Croydon Council has confirmed that it no longer wishes to contest reason for refusal 2 in its decision as the Council is now satisfied a completed Unilateral Undertaking under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the 1990 Act) (the UU) has been provided to secure the sustainable transport contribution. I have no reason to take a different view. I return to this matter later in my decision . Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is t he effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area . Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises the curtilage of Hampton, a detached , two - storey dwelling on a rectangular corner plot , with roads on three sides . Aside from the dwelling , the remainder of the site is generally laid to lawn . The site boundaries typically comprise trees and hedging and there are two Tree Preservation Order s on the site covering a Norway Spruce , several trees at the southern end of the site and some trees along the northern and eastern boundaries . The site lies within the urban area and is surrounded by mixed housing type comprising flatted development, detached dwellings on both small and large plots , semi - detached Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3375462 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 and terraced properties constructed over different decades . This provides local variation in scale, density, site coverage and positioning of development on the site . The spacin g between the existing dwellings in Valley Road , Wildwood Court and Hawkhirst Road varies , with the site relating to all three roads. 5. The propos ed development comprises one detached two - storey dwelling and three pairs of two - storey semi - detached houses with roof accommodation. The semi - detached houses have been designed to look like detached houses and would front onto Hawkhirst Road. The detached house would occupy the corner plot fronting onto Wildwood Court. 6. The propos al provides active development to the street frontages of Haw k hirst Ro ad and Wildwood Court , in keeping with the character of the area where properties typically front onto streets providing active frontages. There is currently no active frontage to Valley Road and this relationship would not change. 7. The site slopes from south to north towards Valley Road and the height of the proposed development follows th e gradient of the sit e . The surrounding dwellings are also at different heights in relation to the street scene due to the level changes in the topography. The stepped design of the proposal and the distances to neighbouring properties would ensure the proposal would not appear out of scale or overbearing to residents of neighbouring dwellings . 8. The proposed development would reflect the variations in height of surrounding developments and positioning relative to the street. 9. T he separation distances between the proposed dwellings and the spacing around the dwellings would not be out of character with the prevailing grain of development , especially when viewed within the context of Valley Road and Wildwood Court . The scheme would therefore not appear unduly cramped in the context of the surrounding development . 10. Existing landscaping which does not benefit from a Tree Preservation Order could be removed without the need for planning permission . Notwithstanding this, a landscaping masterplan showing both hard and soft landscaping has been submitted . This sh ows additional planting to compensate for that removed to accommodate the proposed deve l opment which would make the sch eme acceptable. Compliance with that l andscaping masterplan could be conditioned as part of an approval in the interests of the character and app earance of the development. 11. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Polic y D3 of the London Plan (2021) or Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) (CLP) . These policies require development to be of high quality and make the best use of land by following a design led approach and ensuring development relate s well to its surroundings and respect s the local distinctiveness of an area through its scale, layout, height, form, massing and design detail. Other Matters 12. T he relationship between the proposed development and neighbouring properties would be acceptable due to the separation distances and would have no Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3375462 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 significant effect on the living conditions of neighbouring properties , with particular regard to a loss of privacy , loss of light or overbearing impact. There would be some t emporary disruption during construction but the impacts of this could be minimised through a construction management plan which could be secured by a suitably worded condition. 13. The Council’s tree officer has raised no objection subject to securing a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement and tree protection measures to ensure the protection of trees during construction . I have no reason to take a different view. 14. The Council’s Ecology Consultant has raised no objection and confirmed there is sufficient ecological information to determine the application . S ubject to appropriate mitigation measures both during and post - construction including in respect of external lighting , the likely significant impacts of the proposed development on protected and priority species and habitats would be acceptable. Suitably worded planning conditions would secure this . 15. The appellant would be required to submit a biodiversity gain plan to the local planning authority for approval, due to the provisions of Schedule 7 of the 1990 Act. This would secure an appropriate Biodiversity Net Gain on the site. 16. The formation of new access points to serve the dwellings would reduce the existing space available for on - street parking. The proposed development complies with the parking standards and a condition could be imposed to secure the parking layout . I t is not anticipated that the additional dwellings would generate additional demand for on - street parking . Hawkhirst Road and Valley Road appear to have unrestricted parking on both sides of the road and the flatted development at Wildwood Court appears to have al located parking and garaging. I have no t been provided with substantive evidence that the proposal would have a substantial effect on the availability of on - street parking for existing residents . 17. The site lies within flood zone 1 , is within a critical drainage area and is at a low risk of surface water flooding . The appellant has submitted a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) strategy for the site and th e Council considered this acceptable. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with this would be necessary . I have not been provided with substantive evidence that there is inadequate capacity of the sewerage system or that the scheme would give rise to flood risk . 18. The existing dwelling on site is neither a listed building nor a non - designated heritage asset . Reference has been made to a world war bunker on the site that would require consideration as an historic asset . A condition r equiring a written scheme of investigation prior to commencement of development to address concerns raised over the archaeolo gical potential of the site has been imposed . 19. T he proposed development would not result in the loss of a dwelling smaller than 1 30 square metres or a 3 bedroom home which would be contrary to Policy DM1.2 of the CLP. The proposed development would comply with Policy SP2.7 of the CLP which sets a strategic target for all new homes up to 2036 to have three or more bedrooms. 20. I note the comments raised in relation to the handling of the application. However, this is not a matter I can consider under a S78 planning appeal and does not alter Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3375462 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 my findings in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal. Planning Obligation 21. Policy SP8.13 of the CLP requires a financial contribution towards sustainable transport initiatives in the local area where new dwellings are provided. The UU secures this and I am satisfied that the Obligation is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, that it is directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development in accordance with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy regulations 2010 (as amended) and paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Conditions 22. I have had regard to the various planning conditions that have been suggested by the Council and appellant and have considered them against the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have amended these where necessary for clarity, precision and to avoid duplication . 23. I have imposed pre - commencement conditions where the information requested is necessary prior to development starting on site and these have been agreed with the appellant. 24. In addition to those conditions to which I have already referred to in my decision , I have imposed conditions relating to time and plans in the interests of certainty . In the interests of sustainab le energy use and protecting the living conditions of the occupants from potential noise , I have imposed a condition relating to the submission and approval by the local planning authority of details of external energy generation . Conditions requiring cycle storage and bin storage are necessary to secure sufficient space and encourage sustainable travel and to ensure there is adequate capacity for the storage of refuse / recycling respectively and that they have a satisfactory appea rance. 25. To ensure the efficient use of water within the development, I have imposed a condition limiting water use . 26. In the interests of fire safety, a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with Fire Strategy Statement is necessary . 27. To safeguard the privacy of occupants of adjoining properties, a condition controlling the position, openability and opacity of windows is necessary. 28. I have not imposed a condition requiring a biodiversity enha ncement strategy as the site is not of high ecological value and will be subject to a Biodiversity Gain Plan under section 7 of the 1990 Act. Conclusion 29. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. C Coles INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3375462 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 Schedule of 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: 2024_446 - PL_001; 2024_446 - PL_050 Rev 33; 2024_446 - PL_053 Rev 33; 2024_446 - PL_100 Rev 33; 2024_446 - PL_110 Rev 33; 2024_446 - PL_120 Rev 33; 2024_446 - PL_200 Rev 33; 2024_446 - PL_201 Rev 33; 2024_446 - PL_202 Rev 33; 2024_446 - PL_203 Rev 33; 2024_446 - PL_204 Rev 33; 2024_446 - PL_205 Rev 33; 2024_446 - PL_206 Rev 33; 2024_446 - PL_207 Rev 33; 2024_446 - PL_208 Rev 33; 2024_446 - PL_209 Rev 33; 2024_446 - PL_210 Rev 33; 2024_446 - PL_220 Re v 33; 2024_446 - PL_221 Rev 33; 2024_446 - PL_222 Rev 33; 2024_446 - PL_223 Rev 33; Landscape Masterplan (dated 30/04/2025) . 3) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority (LPA) . The Statement shall provide for: i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; v) wheel washing facilities; vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; viii) swept paths for manoeuvring and turning of large vehicles inside the site ; to leave the site in a forward gear; ix) condition survey of the highway; x) delivery, demolition and construction working hours. The approved Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development. 4) Prior to the commencement of the development, full details of Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details . 5) No development shall commence on site (including any ground clearance, tree works, demolition or construction), until a pre - commencement site meeting has been undertaken. The local planning authority must be notified giving 3 working days notice of the meeting to enable the Council Tree Officer to attend if considered necessary by the local planning authority . Following this meeting and prior to the commencement of any works on site: A) The tree protection measures, tree protection monitoring and site supervision methods approved as part of Condition 4 shall be Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3375462 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 installed/undertaken and thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Then, B) Within 28 days of the completion of the development hereby permitted, the completed schedule of site supervision and monitoring of the arboricultural protection measures shall be submitted for approval to the local planning authority . This condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development, subject to satisfactory written evidence of compliance through contemporaneous supervision and monitoring of the tree protection throughout construction by a suitably qualified and pre - appointed tree specialist. 6) Prior to commencement of the development, a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . Precautionary measures shall include protection for nesting birds, roosting bats, foraging / commuting bats, reptiles, badger, hedgehog. The CEMP: Biodiversity shall also include removal of invasive species from site. The CEMP (Biodiversity) 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 or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements), particularly with regard to reptiles, Common Toad and Hedgehog. 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. g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person. h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs. i) Containment, control and removal of any Invasive non - native species present on site The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details. 7 ) No development shall commence until a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . For land that is included within the WSI, no demolition or development shall take place other than in accordance with the WSI which shall include the statement of significance and research of objectives, and Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3375462 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 a. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording and the nomination of a competent person(s) or organisation to undertake the agreed works b. Where appropriate details of a programme for delivering relative positive public benefits c. The programme for post - investigation assessment and subsequent analysis, publication and dissemination and deposition of resulting material. This part of the conditions shall not be discharged until these elements have been fulfilled in accordance with the programme set out in the WSI. 8 ) Prior to first occupation of the development the hard and soft landscaping , shall be provided and completed as detailed in the Landscape Masterplan as submitted with the application and maintained for the lifetime of the development . The materials are as specified on the landscaping masterplan. As an exception, n ew planting shall be provided and completed in accordance with th e soft landscaping scheme detailed in the Landscape Masterplan prior to the end of the first planting season following completion of the development . The planting shall be maintained for a period of five years from the date of planting. Any new planting which dies, is severely damaged, becomes seriously diseased or is removed within that period shall be replaced by planting of a similar size and species to that originally pla nted. 9) No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the sustainable drainage system has been completed in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment and Management of Surface Water Run - Off details contained within the Flood Risk Assessment and Management o f Surface Water Run - Off report by Herbert Stumpp Limited dated 1 st May 2025. A management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements to secure the effective operation of the sustainable drainage system throughout its lifetime, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the lo cal planning authority prior to occupation. The sustainable drainage system shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan. 10) Details of the cycle stores and refuse stores as shown on the approved Landscape Masterplan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The stores shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted and maintained and retained for these purposes hereafter . 11) The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until parking spaces have been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans. The parking areas shall be permanently retained thereafter exclusively for their designated purpose. No boundary treatments shall exceed 0.6m in height where they fall within the visibility splays of the approved access points. 12) Prior to the installation of external lighting , a lighting design scheme for biodiversity in accordance with Guidance Note 08/23 (Institute of Lighting Professionals) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The scheme shall identify those features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance along Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3375462 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 important routes used for foraging; and show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting plans, drawings and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent bats using their territory. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the scheme and maintained thereafter in accordance with the scheme. No other external lighting shall be installed without prior consent from the local planning authority . 1 3 ) All mitigation measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment (Plumb Associates, March 2025) and Ground Level Tree Assessment (Plumb Associates, July 2025) as already submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle with the local planning authority prior to determination. 1 4 ) Prior to the installation of any external energy generation measures, full details of any external energy generation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The installation of the external energy generation measures shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and maintained for the lifetime of the development. 1 5 ) The development must be carried out in accordance with the Fire Strategy Statement by Altham Lewis Architects received 8th May 2025. 1 6 ) No additional windows shall be formed in the flank elevations of the proposed buildings and approved windows to be installed in the flank elevations of all buildings at first floor level shall be glazed with obscure glass of an obscurity level of no less than 3 and non - opening below 1.7m in height and shall thereafter be permanently retained as such. 1 7 ) The residential dwellings within the development hereby permitted shall achieve a water use target of 110 litres per head per day. End of Schedule⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Conditions 22. I have had regard to the various planning conditions that have been suggested by the Council and appellant and have considered them against the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have amended these where necessary for clarity, precision and to avoid duplication . 23. I have imposed pre - commencement conditions where the information requested is necessary prior to development starting on site and these have been agreed with the appellant. 24. In addition to those conditions to which I have already referred to in my decision , I have imposed conditions relating to time and plans in the interests of certainty . In the interests of sustainab le energy use and protecting the living conditions of the occupants from potential noise , I have imposed a condition relating to the submission and approval by the local planning authority of details of external energy generation . Conclusion 29. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. C Coles
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3376841 (London Borough of Enfield) — 2026-04-29
📍 London Borough of Enfield LPA code: E09000010 PINS reference: 3376841 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 March 2026 by P Storey BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 th April 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/Q5300/W/25/3376841 Garages, Lakeside Road, Southgate, Enfield, Greater London N13 4PR • 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 Mrs Susan Cook against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Enfield. • The application Ref is 25/02682/PIP. • The development proposed is described as : “ P ermission in P rinciple A pplication C hange of U se of a R edundant G arage to a S ingle - S torey D welling ”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising 1 dwelling, at Garages, Lakeside Road, Southgate, Enfield, Greater London N13 4PR , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02682/PIP. 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. This consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in princ iple (PiP) stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in - principle and the second (technical details consent (TDC)) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of those 2 stages. 3. The scope of the considerations for PiP 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 PiP is granted. I have determined the appeal acc ordingly. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development. Reasons 5. The Council’s refusal is based on the view that the proposal would result in sub ‑ standard accommodation and would harm the character and appearance of the Lakes Estate Conservation Area (the CA) , with reliance placed on internal space standards, plot size and development pattern. Similar concerns have been raised by consultees and interested parties, including alleged overdevelopment, Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/W/25/3376841 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 loss of a garage space, parking stress, conflict with the Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme, impacts on living conditions , and doubts about deliverability. 6. However, the PiP regime deliberately separates the question of whether a site is suitable in principle from the question of how development would be designed and delivered. Matters of detail are expressly reserved for the T DC stage. 7. The significance of the CA lies in its strong architectural coherence, Edwardian suburban character, consistent plot rhythm, and contribution of houses, gardens and streetscape to a planned early 20 th century residential environment. Under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, special attention must be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA . 8. H owever , a t this stage I am concerned only with whether the principle of residential development on the site would be compatible with that statutory duty. T he appeal site is part of an established residential area , and the existing garage is a utilitarian structure incidental to that use. There appears no dispute that housing is an appropriate use in this location in broad planning terms , and b oth the Council’s officer report and the Heritage Officer accept that residential use, in itself , would not conflic t with the prevailing character of this part of the CA . 9. I therefore do not find that the site’s use or redevelopment as an independent dwelling would, of itself, be alien to the CA . On the evidence before me , and having regard only to the principle of development, there is nothing to indicate that the development of a single dwelling would harm the character or appearance of the CA at this stage, noting that matters of design, scale and form fall to be considered at the TDC stage . 10. Concerns raised by the Council and others regarding internal space standards, reliance on the existing garage footprint, or assumptions that a future dwelling would necessarily be cramped or sub ‑ standard , rely upon speculative and detailed design outcomes that do not form part of the PiP application. At this stage, there is no fixed layout, footprint , or defined building envelope. 11. Similarly, concerns relating to parking stress, access constraints, servicing arrangements, refuse collection, drainage , and traffic impacts, including those connected to the Low Traffic Neighbourhood measures, do not demonstrate that residential use of the site is unacceptable in principle. Notably, transport officers raise no in ‑ principle objection to a single dwelling and confirm that detailed matters would be assessed through future stages . 12. Concerns raised by interested parties regarding living conditions, including noise, privacy and outlook, rely on assumptions about layout, orientation and intensity of use that have not been advanced at this stage. Such matters are capable of being control led, mitigated or, if necessary, found unacceptable through the TDC process. It would therefore be premature to conclude that an acceptable dwelling could not be achieved, as compliance with these standards fall s to be assessed at the TDC stage. 13. Overall, while I acknowledge the concerns raised , the evidence before me does not convincingly demonstrate that the site is unsuitable in principle for residential development. Rather, the objections largely relate to whether a satisfactory Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/W/25/3376841 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 scheme could be achieved in detail, which is not the test to be applied at the PiP stage . 14. Nevertheless, for the avoidance of doubt, these findings relate only to the suitability of the site for residential development in principle. Granting PiP does not grant planning permission and does not imply that a future TDC application would necessarily be acceptable. A subsequent application would be required to address matters of detail and may be unsuccessful if it fails to comply with the development plan or other material considerations in these terms . 15. Accordingly, I conclude that the site is suitable for residential development in principle , having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development . Insofar as they are relevant to PiP, the proposal would therefore accord with Policies D6 and HC1 of the London Plan, March 2021, Policies CP4, CP30 and CP31 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010 - 2025 , Adopted November 2010 , and Policies DMD8 and DMD44 of the Development Management Document (DMD), Adopted November 2014 . Collectively, these policies seek t o ensure that new residential development delivers high ‑ quality and accessible living accommodation, respects and preserves the character and appearance of heritage assets and their settings, integrates sensitively with its surrounding context, and protects residential amenity and environmental quality, while promoting sustainable, well ‑ designed housing in suitable locations. It would also accord with the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, which have similar aims. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal for p ermission in p rinciple would accord with the development plan as a whole, and there are no considerations to indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed. P Storey INSPECTOR⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
10. Concerns raised by the Council and others regarding internal space standards, reliance on the existing garage footprint, or assumptions that a future dwelling would necessarily be cramped or sub ‑ standard , rely upon speculative and detailed design outcomes that do not form part of the PiP application. At this stage, there is no fixed layout, footprint , or defined building envelope. 11. Similarly, concerns relating to parking stress, access constraints, servicing arrangements, refuse collection, drainage , and traffic impacts, including those connected to the Low Traffic Neighbourhood measures, do not demonstrate that residential use of the site is unacceptable in principle. Notably, transport officers raise no in ‑ principle objection to a single dwelling and confirm that detailed matters would be assessed through future stages . 12. Concerns raised by interested parties regarding living Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal for p ermission in p rinciple would accord with the development plan as a whole, and there are no considerations to indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the plan. I therefore conclude…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3364705 (Oxford City Council) — 2026-04-24
📍 Oxford City Council LPA code: E07000178 PINS reference: 3364705 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 April 2026 by Stephen Hawkins MA, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 April 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/G3110/X/25/3364705 88 Bernwood Road, Oxford, Oxfordshire OX3 9LQ • 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 Mrs F Hafiz against the decision of Oxford City Council. • The application ref 24/03002/CPU, dated 1 5 December 2024, was refused by notice dated 27 March 2025. • 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 described as ‘ Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Development for the erection of an outbuilding (8.3m depth x 5.7m width x height of 2.5m) . ’ 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 Matter 2. The description of the proposal in the banner heading is taken from the application form. For the Certificate, a fter obtaining the agreement of the main parties I shall use a description which more concisely reflects the matter for which an LDC is sought . Main Issue 3. The main issue in the appeal is whether the Council’s refusal to grant an LDC was well - founded. This turns on whether it has been shown that planning permission is granted for the proposal by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO). Reasons 4. The appeal property contains a two - storey, semi - detached , three - bedroom dwelling, w ith a generously portioned rear garden. It is proposed to erect a freestanding single storey residential outbuilding with a monopitch roof, towards the far end of the rear garden . The burden is firmly on the appellant to show that the proposal is lawful, the relevant test of the evidence being on the balance of probability. 5. The proposal falls within the definition of development set out in s55(1) of the Act. Planning permission is required for the carrying out of any development of land, having regard to s57(1) of the Act. At s191(2)(a), the Act states that operations are Appeal Decision APP/G3110/X/25/3364705 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 lawful where no enforcement action may be taken in respect of them. This includes where th ose operations benefit from a grant of planning permission. 6. The outbuilding would be located within the curtilage of the dwelling. The GPDO at Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E, paragraph E.(a) grants planning permission for the provision within the curtilage of a dwelling of any building or enclosure, swimmin g or other pool, where it is required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling as such. 7. In the context of a dwelling, an incidental purpose is generally regarded as being a subordinate activity connected with the running of the dwelling or with the domestic or leisure activities of the occupiers. P aragraph E.4 of Class E states that ‘purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such’ includes the keeping of poultry, bees, pet animals, birds or other livestock for the domestic needs or personal enjoyment of the occupants of the dwelling. 8. The Government’s Technical Guidance (TG) advises that a large range of buildings can fall within Class E, including garden sheds, other storage buildings and garages, as long as they can properly be described as having a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling. The TG goes on to advise that ‘incidental’ does not cover normal residential uses such as separate self - contained accommodation, or the use of an outbuilding for primary living accommodation such as a bedroom, bathroom, or kitchen. 1 9. I n Class E, ‘ r equired’ for an incidental purpose should be interpreted as ‘reasonably required’ and does not rest on the unrestrained whim of a householder. The physical size of an outbuilding, alone or in relation to a dwelling, is not conclusive; it is necessary to identify the purpose and incidental quality in relation to the enjoyment of the dwelling and evaluate whether the outbuilding is genuinely and reasonably required in order to accommodate the proposed use or activity and thus achieve that purpose . 10. The outbuilding would provide a home gym, along with space for household storage and a garden room. Such uses could reasonably be considered as being subordinate to and connected with the running of a dwelling and as such, be incidental to its enjoyment. They are uses which would not ordinarily be part and parcel of and integral to the use as a dwelling . It is not uncommon for the use s stated above and similar incidental uses to occupy a secondary building or building s separate from the main dwelling. 11. The outbuilding would also accommodate a shower/WC. This could reasonably be regarded as part of the incidental activity as a gym. It would clearly be more convenient for the occupiers of the property to be able to access a facility in the outbuilding in which to freshen up and change after using the gym and to be able to use a WC, rather than walk ing outside for several metres to access facilities in the dwelling, possibly during hours of darkness or in periods of inclement weather. 12. T he gym would have a gross internal floor area (GIA) of around 16.5m 2 , with an area for items of fitness equipment including two types of bench press and an exercise bike , along with an area for mat - based exercise s . Few details w ere supplied concerning exactly how the gym would be used by the appellant and other family members residing at the property. Even so, i t is not unreasonable for 1 Permitted development rights for householders: Technical Guidance MHCLG 2019 Appeal Decision APP/G3110/X/25/3364705 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 occupiers of a dwelling of this size to wish to engage in regular home - based exercise as part of a healthy lifestyle , either individually or sometimes together , using a home gym facility . There is little to suggest t hat the gym would not b e used by family members taking exercise together on occasion, as well as on an individual basis at other times. 13. Further more , it is n ot un reasonable for a home gym to provide sufficient space to accommodate a few basic items of fitness equipment. Based on one or perhaps two people exercis ing at or around the same time , whilst also ensuring safety clearances between equipment and allowing room for circulation, the gym would not provide an overly large space . The different areas in the gym would allow for more effective exercise routine s, involv ing a mix of equipment - based and mat - based activities. 14. It is highly unlikely that the gym could be used comfortably by more than a couple of pe ople exercising at any one time or be capable of accommodating a significant amount of additional fitness equipment. It is also highly doubtful that the gym could be made appreciably smaller without it be ing cramped internally and inconvenient to use, for example involving the need to mov e items of equipment around between activities. With a GIA of around 3.8m 2 , there would be sufficient space in the shower/WC for comfortable use by one person at a time . Accordingly, the gym and its associated shower/WC are not excessive in size having regard to their stated purposes. 15. Having a GIA of around 7m 2 , the household stor age space would not be unusually or unreasonably large for its intended purpose . The floor area would be considerably smaller than other spaces commonly use d by householders for stor ing dome stic items - for example, a residential garage. With a GIA of about 2.9 m 2 , the garden room would be capable of accommodating a modest range of garden related items such as tools , equipment and machinery. The floor area would not be dissimilar to that of a fairly modest garden shed. Given the significant size of the appellant’s garden and the probable associated maintenance requirements, it is entirely poss ible that a secure , weathertight facility of similar proportions would be needed to accommodate such items. Therefore, the garden room would not be unusually large when taking into account the likely type and size of items that would be kept there . 16. For the reasons set out above, the outbuilding would not have an unusually or unreasonably large floor area , having regard to its intended uses. This strongly suggests that the nature and scale of the proposed activities would not go beyond purposes that are incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling as such . It points towards the outbuilding not being excessive in size, having regard to the secondary or incidental role in relation to the dwelling that it is proposed to serve. 17. I am mindful that at around 45.6m 2 , the outbuilding would have a built footprint only slightly smaller than that of the dwelling ( approximately 56m 2) . Nevertheless, with living accommodation on two floor levels the dwelling has over twice the total floor area. This is another factor which, whilst not in itself conclusive, points towards the outbuilding as not being of excessive size in relation to its stated purposes. 18. There is no requir ement in Class E to show that existing floorspace in the dwelling is incap ab le of use for accommodat ing some or all of the purposes the outbuilding would serve . Besides, I saw that ground floor rooms in the dwelling are being fully Appeal Decision APP/G3110/X/25/3364705 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 utilised on a day - to - day basis . Al so, there are likely to be practical difficulties in accommodating some of the proposed activities in the dwellin g; for example , noise from exercise activity associated with use of a gym would have the potential to disturb other occupiers of the property or neighbours at times. 19. Drawing the above matters together, based on the evidence before me , as a matter of fact and degree and in the individual circumstances of this particular case , I find that the outbuilding would be genuinely and reasonably required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling as such ; it would not be of excessive size having regard to the purposes proposed and Class E, paragraph E.(a) would therefore be complied with. 20. The planning permission granted by Class E is subject to all the other relevant limitations in paragraphs E.1 to E.3 being satisfied, where relevant. This includes p aragraph E.1(h) , which does not permit development where it would include the construction or provision of a veranda , balcony or raised platform. 21. The re would be a part enclosed , covered area on the front elevation of the outbuilding . This is not what I would ordinarily describe as a ‘veranda ; ’ for that to be the case the part enclosed, covered area would have to continue along all or the greater part of the front elevation of the out building . T he TG describes a veranda as being usually roofed and often partly enclosed , extending along the outside of a building at ground level [my emphasis]. Th is reinforces my view that to have the characteristics of a veranda , the part enclosed, covered area would have to continue significantly further along the front elevation. It seems to me that, e ncompassing a modest p ortion of the front elevation , providing access to the main entrance and having limited floor space , th e part enclosed , covered area could more accurately be described as a porch. Therefore, the proposal would not be in breach of the limitation in paragraph E.1 (h). 22. There is no dispute that the outbuilding would satisfy a ll th e other relevant size, height and locational limitations in paragraph E.1 and that paragraphs E.2 and E.3 are not applicable in this instance . I have found no sound reason to conclude otherwise. 23. Accordingly, the appellant has discharged the burden on them to show that, on the balance of probability, the proposal is granted planning permission by the GPDO at Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E and is lawful for planning purposes. Conclusion 24. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the Council’s refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development for the erection of an outbuilding (8.3m depth x 5.7m width x height of 2.5m) is not well - founded and that the appeal should succeed. I will exercise accordingly the powers transferred to me in section 195(2) of the 1990 Act (as amended). Stephen Hawkins INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/G3110/X/25/3364705 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 1 5 December 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 : Based on the available evidence and on the balance of probability, planning permission is granted for the proposal (as shown on drawing s reference PA - 001 & 002 ) by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). Signed Stephen Hawkins Inspector Date: 24 April 2026 Reference: APP/G3110/X/25/3364705 First Schedule T he erection of an outbuilding (8.3m depth x 5.7m width x height of 2.5m) Second Schedule Land at 88 Bernwood Road, Oxford, Oxfordshire OX3 9LQ IMPORTANT NOTES – SEE OVER Appeal Decision APP/G3110/X/25/3364705 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/G3110/X/25/3364705 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 Plan This is the plan referred to in this decision dated: 24 April 2026 by Stephen Hawkins Land at: 88 Bernwood Road, Oxford, Oxfordshire OX3 9LQ Reference: APP/G3110/X/25/3364705 Scale: Not to Scale⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
21. The re would be a part enclosed , covered area on the front elevation of the outbuilding . This is not what I would ordinarily describe as a ‘veranda ; ’ for that to be the case the part enclosed, covered area would have to continue along all or the greater part of the front elevation of the out building . T he TG describes a veranda as being usually roofed and often partly enclosed , extending along the outside of a building at ground level [my emphasis]. Th is reinforces my view that to have the characteristics of a veranda , the part enclosed, covered area would have to continue significantly further along the front elevation. It seems to me that, e ncompassing a modest p ortion of the front elevation , providing access to the main entrance and having limited floor space , th e part enclosed , covered area could more accurately be described as a porch. Therefore, the proposal would not be in breach of the limitation in paragraph E.1 (h). 22. There is no dispute that the outbuilding would satisfy a ll th e other relevant size, height and locational limitations in paragraph E.1 and that paragraphs E.2 and E.3 are not applicable in this instance . I have found no sound reason …
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3323328 (Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council) — 2024-05-02
📍 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council PINS reference: 3323328 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 February 2024 by Rebecca McAndrew, BA Hons, MSc, PG Dip Urban Design, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02.05.2024 Appeal Ref: APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 West View Farm, Baughurst Road, Baughurst RG26 5LL 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 Mr and Mrs Giles against the decision of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. The application Ref 21/03332/FUL, dated 22 October 2021, was refused by notice dated 17 April 2023. The development proposed is the erection of 3 no. detached dwellings with garages, parking and associate d landscaping following the demolition of existing stables/barn. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of 3 no. detached dwellings with garages, parking and associated landscaping following the demolition of existing stables/barn at West View Farm, Baughurst Road, Baughurst RG26 5LL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/03332/FUL, dated 22 October 2021, subject to the attached schedule of conditions. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development for the proposals changed within the course of the planning application as the appellants amended the scheme. I have therefore taken the description of development in the banner above from the 3. The Government published on 19 December 2023 a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst I have had regard to the revised national policy as a material consideration, planning decisions must still be made in accordance w ith the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the issues most relevant to the appeal remain unaffected by the revisions to the Framework. I am therefore satisfied that there is no requirement to seek further submissions on the revised Framework, and that no party would be disadvantaged by such a course of action. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Reasons 5. The site is located within the countryside, as defined by the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 - 2029 (2016) (LP). It includes a variety of equestrian structures and facilities, associated with the adjacent West View Farm. A number of residential properties sit between the appeal site and Baug hurst Road. 6. The appeal scheme proposes large, detached houses within sizeable plots, which reflect s the general character of Baughurst Road. This layout would retain a good level of space around the homes. As such, the dwellings would comfortably sit with in the site and would not appear cramped or represent overdevelopment. 7. Whilst Baughurst Road is predominantly a ribbon settlement, I noted on my site visit that there are parts where there is a less linear pattern of development. This includes West View F arm itself. The proposed development would in - fill an area between neighbouring Manor Farm House and land where a new dwelling has recently been allowed on appeal, although this consent has not yet been implemented (20/00578/FUL). As such , locating the p roposed linear development to the rear of existing properties would not be at odds with the overall existing development pattern. 8. I recognise that the scheme would introduce dwellings and associated residential paraphernalia onto land beyond the existing r esidential area of Baughurst Road. However, this is a brownfield site where there are already built structures. Also, the proposed curtilages would not extend beyond the footprint of the existing stables. Consequently, the countryside adjoining the site would remain untouched and open. In addition, the proposed boundary planting would help soften the proposed development within the wider rural landscape. 9. Taking all the above into account, the proposals would not have a significant urbanising impact and would not unacceptably harm the rural character and appearance of the wider area. 10. The proposal therefore meets the requirements of the Framework, Policies SS6, EM1 and EM10 of the LP, the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018) and the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document (2018). Taken together these require residential development on brownfield sites in the open countryside to be high quality, not visually intrusive within the landscape and to positive ly contribute to the sense of place and local distinctiveness. Other Matters 11. I have considered several issues raised by local residents. I note comments regarding highway safety, traffic generation from the proposed development, the effect of light pollution on wildlife, loss of privacy to existing properties, lack of local facilities to support additiona l residents and the fact that the site is within an Emergency Planning Zone. However, these matters are not contested by the Council and therefore, in my judgement, none of this is of sufficient weight to alter the balance of considerations in this appeal . Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 Conditions 12. considered these in light of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and the tests set out in the Framework. For clarity and to ensure compliance with the tests, I have amen ded some of the suggested wording. 13. In addition to the standard time limit condition (condition No 1), I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans as this provides certainty (2). 14. I have includ ed a condition requiring details of external materials to be approved by the Council, prior to commencement. This is to ensure the new dwellings properly reflect the character and appearance of the area (3). For the same reason, I have attached a conditio n requiring details of hard and soft landscaping (4). 15. To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers during construction of the development, construction hours and hours for deliveries have been limited (5 and 6). For the same reasons, a Construction Method Statement must be submitted to and be approved by the Council prior to commencement (7). 16. I have attached a condition regarding water efficiency to ensure that the development delivers a level of sustainable water use (8). 17. A c ondition requiring bin stores to be provided is necessary to ensure convenience of arrangements for refuse and recycling collection and to ensure that no obstruction is caused on the adjoining highway (9). 18. Secure cycle storage is required to encourage acti ve travel (10). In the interests of highway safety, a condition is imposed to ensure appropriate carparking and turning facilities are provided at the site (11). 19. included condition s requiring the risks posed by contamination to be properly addressed as part of the development (12 - 14). 20. I have restricted certain permitted development rights relating to ancillary development within the curtilage of the new dwellings. This will mean suf ficient controls are in place to help ensure that the proposal continues to respect the rural character and appearance of the area (15). 21. provide a net gain for biodiversity, I have attached a condition requiring a Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan (16). 22. The Council originally proposed a condition to secure accessible housing standards in one of the three dwellings. It indicates that this is to comply with LP Policy CN3. This requirement would significantly exceed the policy requirement for 15% accessible and adaptable homes be secured within developments. In addition, the reasoned justification recognises that this requirement may not be appropriate for a development of 3 or less units. In Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 view of this, such a condition would not be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Given that it would not pass the tests for conditions set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework, I have not imposed it. Conclu sion 23. I conclude that the proposal would accord with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would indicate that the appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is allowed. INSPECTOR Conditions Schedule 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: BB_01 Rev A - Location and Block Plan, BB_02 Rev A - Plot 1 Plans and Elevations, BB_03 Rev A - Plot 2 Plans and Elevations, BB_04 Rev A - Plot 3 Plans and Elevations 3. No development above damp proof course shall commence until details / samples of the materials to be used in the construc tion of the external surfaces of the external walls and roofs of the dwellings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details samples . 4. Notwithstanding the approved plans, no development above damp proof course shall commence until there shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a scheme for soft and hard landscaping. The scheme shall include in dications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, identify those to be retained and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of development. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping s hall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the devel opment die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. 5. Works relating to construction, including demolition works or other preparatory works, shall take place o nly between 07:30 and 18:00 on Monday to Friday, 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays. 6. Deliveries or collections of construction materials or plant and machinery shall be taken at or des patched from the site only between 07:30 to 18:00 Monday to Friday , 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 7. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Cons truction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CMS shall include details of: a) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; and, b) A traffic management plan, t o include a strategy for traffic management along the public right of way, which shall involve the erection of signs warning drivers of the presence of pedestrians and the need to give way, the implementation of a low - speed limit, and the use of banksmen. The approved CMS shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development. 8. Prior to the first occupation of the development, a Construction Statement detailing how the new homes shall meet a water efficiency standard of 110 litres or les s per person per day has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, unless a demonstration shows that this requirement for sustainable water use cannot be achieved on technical or viability grounds. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 9. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until refuse and recycling storage has been provided in connection with the respective dwelling, in accordance with details shown on drawing no. BB_01 Rev A . The refuse and recycling storage shall be maintaine d in perpetuity. 10. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until secure cycle storage facilities have been provided to serve the respective dwelling in accordance with details with details shown on drawing no. BB_01 Rev A . The cycle storage facilitie s shall be maintained in perpetuity. 11. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the provision for the parking and turning of vehicles, including garages, to serve that dwelling have been made in accordance Drawing no. BB_01 Rev A. Thereafter, the y shall be maintained for such purpose in perpetuity. 12. No works pursuant to this permission shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: (a) a desk top study carried out by a competent person doc umenting all the previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance; (b) if deemed necessary by the Local Planning Authority, a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and inc orporating chemical and gas analysis identified as being appropriate by the desk study; (c) if deemed necessary by the Local Planning Authority, a detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases wh en the site is developed. The scheme must include a timetable of works and site management procedures and the nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works, together with details of future monitoring and maintenance. The sche me must 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. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 If during any works contamination is encountered which has not be en previously identified, it should be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. The additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme, agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, together with a ti metable for implementation. The approved remediation scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 13. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until a verification report by a competent person (as approved under condition 12 (c)) showing that any remediation required and approved under condition 12 (c) has been fully implemented in accordance with the approved details has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Unless otherwise specified, the verification rep ort shall include: (a) as - built drawings of the implemented scheme; (b) photographs of the remediation works in progress; and (c) certificates demonstrating that imported materials and or any materials left in situ on the site are free of contamination. Th e development shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the details of future monitoring and maintenance approved under condition 7(c). 14. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until there has been submitted to and approved by the Lo cal 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 should take place in situ at a frequency of 1 per 10 0m3. 15. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re - enacting that Order with or without modification), no building, structure or other alteratio n permitted by Classes A to F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be erected on the application site without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. 16. Prior to the commencement of development, a Biodiversity Enhancement & Managem ent Plan (BEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall deliver a minimum of 0.29 Habitat Units and 0.66 Hedgerow Units as stipulated in the Biodiversity Technical Note on Biodiversity Impact Calculatio ns by HAD dated 13/10/2022. The BEMP will include the results of the provided Biodiversity Metric and the following: a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed and enhanced b) Extent and location/area of proposed enhancement works on appropria te scale maps and plans to include species/faunal enhancement measures c) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management d) Aims and Objectives of management e) Appropriate management Actions for achieving Aims and Objectives Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 f) An annual work programme (to cover an initial 5 - year period) g) Details of the specialist ecological management body or organisation responsible for responsible for implementation of the Plan h) For each of the first 5 years of the Plan, a pr ogress report sent to the LPA reporting on progress of the annual work programme and confirmation of required Actions for the next 12 - month period i) The Plan will be reviewed and updated every 5 years and implemented for perpetuity The Plan shall include details of the legal and funding mechanisms by which the long - term implementation of the Plan will be secured by the developer with the specialist ecological management body or organisation responsible for its delivery. The Plan shall also set out (where t he results from the monitoring show that the Aims and Objectives of the BEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the Objectives of the originally appr oved Plan. The approved Plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3332828 (Dorset) — 2024-05-01
📍 Dorset LPA code: E06000059 PINS reference: 3332828 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - i nspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 April 2024 by Alison Fish BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 st May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/D1265/D/23/3332828 Outlook, View Road, Lyme Regis, Dorset DT7 3AA 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 Mr and Mrs Hatfield against the decision of Dorset Council. The application Ref is P/HOU/2023/02609. The development proposed is two storey extension and porch. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey extension and porch at Outlook, View Road, Lyme Regis, Dorset DT7 3AA in accordance with the terms of the application Ref P /HOU/2023/02609 , and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location and b lock p lan d rawing number C2320.01 ; Proposed floor plan d rawing n umber C2320.04 ; Proposed elevation s drawing number C2320.05 and Proposed site plan drawing number C2320.06 , all dated 29 March 2022 . 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the window at first flo o r level on the south east elevation ha s been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed . O nce ins talled the window shall remain non - opening and the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. Preliminary Matters 2. On 22 November 2023, all designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty I have therefore referred to the Dorset AONB as the Dorset National Landscape. However, for the avoidance of doubt, the legal designation and policy status of these areas are unchanged. Appeal Decision APP/D1265/D/23/3332828 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupier s with respect to outlook and privacy . Reasons 4. is a detached dwelling located i n a predominantly residential area with a mix of dwelling styles, types and sizes. 5. Located on sloping ground , the ground floor of the appeal property is set below the level of View Road . The p orch has been erected on the front elevation in materials which match the main dwelling. D ue to its siting and modest scale , the porch respects the character and appearance of the main dwelling and does not appear at odds with the overall street scene . In this respect, there would be no conflict with Policy ENV12 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015 (LP) in relation to the design and positioning of buildings. 6. The neighbouring property to the south - east, known as Kelly Bray , is set further back from View Road than the appeal property. As such, the proposed two storey extension to the rear of the appeal property would project no further out than the rear elevation of Kelly Bray . The roof of the extension would have hips on three sides and a flat top which would minimise the overall height of the proposed extension. This, together with its siting relative to Kelly Br means that it would not have an overbearing effect on the occupiers of that property . 7. The sloping topograp hy in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site and the relative positioning of dwellings means that overlooking already occurs between neighbouring properties. The appeal property has its main living accommodation at first floor level . A n oriel window and Juliet balcony to the dining area provid es 180 degree views roughly north to south. From this window there are oblique views into the rear garden . I also saw at my site visit there is an elevated patio area at the rear of the adjacent . As a result, privacy in the rea r garden of Kelly Bray is already compromised . 8. The proposed extension will not result in any greater overlooking to th e existing wi n dows . Equally, there would be no loss of privacy to the windows on the rear elevation of the house as the proposed extension would not project beyond its rear fa?ade . Although privacy is al ready compromised , there are times of the year when the raised patio area o f would not be in use . In addition, t he prevailing views from the patio are in a south easterly direction towards Lyme Bay , rather than back towards Kelly Bray . The proposed extension on the other hand, would provide t he occupiers wi th a direct view into the rear garden and the conservatory on the rear of Kelly Bray at all times . N otwithstanding whether the first floor is occupied as a bedroom, office or other habitable accommodation , t his would result in a significant adverse effec t on the living conditions of the occupiers of Kelly Bray through loss of privacy . 9. The appellant has suggested 1 a condition requiring the window on the south east elevation to be non - opening and obscure glazed . This would overcome any 1 At paragraph 11 [Areas of Compromise] of the Statement of Case Appeal Decision APP/D1265/D/23/3332828 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 unacceptable overlooking . Securing this by way of a condition would be reasonable and necessary to prevent overlooking . 10. The proposal therefore complies with Policy ENV16 of the LP wh ich seeks to avoid significant adverse effects on the living conditions of existing residents through loss of privacy or an overbearing impact. Accordingly, I also find no conflict with Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of providing a high standard of amenity for existing users. Other Matters 11. refers to the impact of the two storey extension on the living conditions of the occupiers the property to the north west. I saw at my site visit, that due to the orientation of Little Rowan , the extension would have a visible presence when viewed from its main living areas. However, its siting , height and extent of projection is such that it would not re sult in a loss of light or have an overbearing impact on the occupiers of Little Rowan to a harmful extent. The high level obscure glazed windows on the north west elevation would prevent overlooking. 12. Other i nterested parties have expressed concerns about overlooking . However, a degree of mutual overlooking is a common feature in this residential area due to the topography and t he proposed extension would not lead to further overlooking to a harmful extent . 13. The proposed extension by virtue of its size, siting, design and use of matching materials would not be at odds with the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Whilst the extension would extend into an open area providing expansive views from View Road across Lyme Bay, much of the v iew would be harmfully from the street scene. 14. Concerns have been expressed about land stability and that some properties are experiencing subsidence. However, there is no substantive evidence before me that the proposed extension would contribute to land instability. In any event, Paragraph 190 of the Framework states that responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner. 15. A dwelling has been er ected in part of the former garden area of the appeal property . Whilst the proposed extension would reduce the available garden area further , this would not amount to overdevelopment. A usable garden area would remain. Given the extent of hard landscaping in the garden, the impact of the proposed extension on wildlife habitat is negligible . 16. Interested parties have also raised concerns that the porch has already been erected. This type of application is possible under Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which applications. 17. The construction works for the proposed extension would, no doubt, cause a degree of disturbance and disruption in an area which interested parties advise has seen ongoing construction projects for some time. Whilst I have some sympathy for existing occupiers in these circumstances, the works would be time limited and it would not be reasonable to withhold consent on this basis alone. Concern has also been e xpressed that the works would result in a loss of Appeal Decision APP/D1265/D/23/3332828 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 income f rom letting . However, planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. As such the protection of purely private interests is not a cons ideration I have given any weight to 2 . 18. The appeal s ite is located within the Dorset National Landscape (DNL) . From what I have seen and read, including the Council s consideration of the impact of the proposal on the DNL , I am satisfied that the proposal would conserve its natural beauty and no conflict with Policy ENV1 of the LP would arise. Conditions 19. As the porch has already been constructed , the standard commenc e ment condition is not necessary. I t is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty and a condition is also necessary to ensure that the materials used in the development match the existing dwelling in the interests of visual amenity. 20. A condition requiring the first floor window on the south east elevation to be non - opening and obscure glazed is necessa ry to protect t he adjacent occupiers from an unacceptable level of overlooking. Conclusion 21. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed . Alison Fish INSPECTOR 2 Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 21b - 008 - 20140306 of the Planning Practice Guidance⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
This type of application is possible under Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which applications. 17. The construction works for the proposed extension would, no doubt, cause a degree of disturbance and disruption in an area which interested parties advise has seen ongoing construction projects for some time. Whilst I have some sympathy for existing occupiers in these circumstances, the works would be time limited and it would not be reasonable to withhold consent on this basis alone. Concern has also been e xpressed that the works would result in a loss of Appeal Decision APP/D1265/D/23/3332828 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 income f rom letting . However, planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. As such the protection of purely private interests is not a cons ideration I have given any weight to 2 . 18. The appeal s ite is located within the Dorset National Landscape (DNL) . From what I have seen and read, including the Council s consideration of the impact of the proposal on the DNL , I am satisfied that the proposal would conserve its natural beauty and no conflict with Policy ENV1 of the LP would arise. Conclusion 21. For th…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3332006 (Amber Valley Borough Council) — 2024-05-01
📍 Amber Valley Borough Council LPA code: E07000032 PINS reference: 3332006 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 April 2024 by Elaine Moulton BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/M1005/W/23/3332006 Pingle Cottage, 31 Milford Road, Duffield, Belper, Derbyshire DE56 4EL The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. The appeal is made by Dr Alastair McCance against the decision of Amber Valley Borough Council. The application Ref is AVA/2021/0786. The ap plication sought planning permission for detac hed two bedroom bungalow without complying with conditions attached to planning permission Ref AVA/2008/0036 , dated 21 February 2008 . The conditions in dispute are Nos 2 and 5 which state that: 2) The living accommodation hereby approved shall be used as a self - contained unit of occupation, ancillary to the associated main household, and shall not be severed as an independent and unconnected residence . 5) No work shall commence on the site until full details of t he proposed treatment of the boundary(ies) of the site has been submitted to and approved by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. Any agreed scheme shall be implemented in full in accordance with a phasing scheme prior to the occupation of the development . The re asons given for the conditions are: 2) This permission is given in view of the personal circumstances of the applicant. The creation of a dwelling independent of the main household would not normally be permitted on this site due to its relationship to ex isting dwellings and level of amenity provision in accordance with policies LS3 and H12 of the Adopted Amber Valley Borough Local Plan 200 6 . 5) To ensure both the satisfactory appearance of the completed development and an adequate level of amenity for the proposed dwellings in accordance with policy H12 of the Adopted Amber Valley Borough Local Plan 2006. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for detached two bedroom bungalow at Pingle Cottage, 31 Milford Road, Duffield, B elper, Derbyshire DE56 4EL in accordance with the application Ref AVA/2021/0786 , without compliance with condition s attached to planning permission Ref AVA/2008/0036 dated 21 February 2008 and subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule . App lications for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Dr Alastair McCance against Amber Valley Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Appeal Decision APP/M1005/W/23/3332006 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Preliminary Matters 3. The Council has confirmed that the appeal site does not lie within Belper Parish . Consequently, the Belper Neighbourhood Plan , referred to within the decision notice, is not relevant to the proposal . I have determined the appeal on that basis . 4. The Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in December 2023. For the avoidance of doubt, where reference is made in this decision to paragraph numbers, they are taken from the latest version of the Framework. Back ground and Main Issues 5. Planning permission was granted in 2008 for a detached two - bedroom bungalow at the rear of 31 Milford Road , the host property . The permission was subject to several conditions, including condition 2 which requires that the bungalow re mains as ancillary accommodation to the host property , and condition 5 requiring the approval and implementation of boundary treatments . The appellant wishes to remove condition 2 so that the bungalow can be occupied independently. A variation of condition 5 is also sought to reflect the existing and proposed boundary treatments . 6. The main issues are , therefore, the effect of the remov al of condition 2 and variation of condition 5 on : the character and appearance of the area; and the living conditions of neighbouring occupants , with particular regard to noise and disturbance . Reasons Character and appearance 7. The host property is a two - storey mid terrace house within a predominantly residential area . The submitted plans show that the ho uses within the terrace have gardens of varying configuration and size , including small gardens . There is also a mix of boundary treatments within the wider terrace. This variation , and lack of consistency, contributes to the character and appearance of th e area . 8. The garden of the host property is long , and widens towards the rear, extending behind the adjoining property, 29 Milford Road (No 29) . The appeal site is bound by a mixture of walls, wooden fences, and hedges that are consistent in appearance with the boundary treatments within the wider area . 9. The bungalow is located towards the rear of the garden, on an upper patio area that is enclosed by a low wall. It is not evident in views from Milford Road and whilst it is visible from a publ Close, such views are very limited. 10. The bungalow is not of a scale and appearance that is characteristic of the area . It is, however, already in situ and would be retained unaltered as part of the propos al . A subdivision of the plot to form separate gardens for the bungalow and the host property is proposed . This would involve the retention of the existing boundary treatment s and the introduction of an addition al Appeal Decision APP/M1005/W/23/3332006 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 section of timber fence across the plot. T he existing and proposed boundary treatments and the resultant garden areas would not be alien to, or out of proportion with, the varied character of the surrounding area. Additionally , whilst the occupation of the bungalow as a separate and independent dw elling would be likely to result in the presence of additional domestic paraphernalia , this would be limited in extent given the modest size of the dwelling and its proposed curtilage . 11. Consequently, g iven that the change s that would arise from the proposal would have a very limited and not unacceptable impact on the character and urban grain of the area , I find that it would not represent inappropriate backland development. Furthermore, for the same reasons, t he use of the bungalow as an independent dwelling would not constitute overdevelopment of the plot. 12. Accordingly , I find that the removal of condition 2 and variation of condition 5 as propos ed would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. I there fore find no conflict with Policy L S3 of the Amber Valley Borough Local Plan (LP), which seeks to ensure that development reflects the principles of good design by, amongst other things, respecting the character of the area . It would also achieve the desig n aims set out at paragraph 135 of the Framework. Living conditions 13. Persons occupying the bungalow in compliance with condition 2 , are likely to carry out some day - to - day activities in combination with the occupants of, and occasionally gain access through , the host dwelling. Nonetheless, the bungalow provides self - contained facilities that enable independent living . I t is therefore reasonable to consider that access to such ancillary accommodation would be regularly gai ned using a n existing pedestrian walkway that is shared by several properties . 14. N o extension or alteration is proposed to the bungalow and , consequently , the number of occupants that it could accommodate would remain unchanged . Furthermore, t here is no com pelling evidence before me that demonstrates that the proposed use of the bungalow as an independent dwelling would lead to a material increase in the number of occupants , when compared to its existing use as ancillary accommodation, or to the associated level or intensity of activity . 15. T he appeal proposa l would result in the bungalow being accessed only using the pedestrian walkway . This would generat e some additional comin gs and goings close to No 29 , which contains a bedroom that extends over it . However, given the existing use of the shared walkway, including that associated with the use of the bungalow as ancillary accommodation, any uplift in pedestrian movements near No 29 would be very modest in number. In the context of a densely develop ed residential area adjoining a busy road , such additional activity would be unlikely to generate more noise than the existing use of the site to an extent where it would be detr imental to living conditions of adjoining residents. 16. Whilst not shared by the Council, concern has been expressed that the proposal would result in some loss of privacy to the occupants of the adjoining houses . However, the proposal does not involve the i nsertion of additional windows and the extent to which overlooking could take place would not , Appeal Decision APP/M1005/W/23/3332006 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 therefore, be increased . Furthermore, the separation distance between the bungalow and the adjoining dwellings is sufficient to ensure that the living conditions of the surrounding neighbours would not be unacceptably harmed . 17. For these reasons, I find that the removal of condition 2 and variation of condition 5 as propos ed would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupants . Accordingly, I find no conflict with LP Policy H12 , which seeks to ensure that development reflects the principles of good design by, amongst other things, requir ing that housing development does not unduly affect the amenities of adjoining or adjacent p roperties . It would also achieve the design aims set out at paragraph 135 of the Framework . Other Matters 18. It has been suggested that the bungalow has been used as a holiday let in breach of condition 2 . Reference has also been made to the appellant seeking to make a profit from the proposal. However , these are matters that fall outside of the remit of this appeal and ha ve had no bearing on my decision. 19. C oncern has been expressed that there is no means of vehicular access to the site and no parking spaces ar e proposed. However, I have been presented with no substantive evidence that would lead me to conclusions in this regard, that the absence of off - street parking would not lead to highway safety issues . Conditions 20. Considering my findings, it is not necessary to comply with conditions 2 and 5 of the planning permission. I have therefore omitted condition 2 and have replaced con dition 5 with one , that requires the approval of the details of the proposed boundary fence and its installation . 21. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that where an application under section 73 of the Act is granted , the relevant conditions from th e original planning permission should be repeated unless they have already been discharged. 22. The Council have not suggested the reimposition of condition 3 which requires the approval of materials for the external elevation and roof of the bungalow . I cons ider that the utilised material s are acceptable, and the appearance of the completed development is satisfactory, and as such I agree that the condition is no longer necessary. 23. The PPG indicates that permitted development rights should only be removed in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the removal of certain permitted development rights relating to extensions , including porches , alterations , boundary treatments and outbuildi ngs is necessary in the inte rests of safeguarding the living conditions of the occupiers of the bungalow and the neighbours. This is to ensure that adequate garden space is retained and in recognition that an increase in accommodation could lead to a mater ial , and unacceptable, increase in the number of occupants and associated noise and disturbance . Hence , I have reimposed such a condition, although I have made some amendments without changing its substance to avoid duplication of wording . Appeal Decision APP/M1005/W/23/3332006 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 Conclusion 24. For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal is allowed, and a new planning permission is granted. Elaine Moulton INSPECTOR Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans and other submitted details : Concept Drawing Proposed site layout, block plan & location plan 002 Rev B . 2) The hereby approved development shall not be occupied until the boundary treatments , as set out w ithin drawing no 002 Rev B are in place, full details of which shall be firstly agreed in writing by the local planning authority and shall thereafter remain in place for the lifetime of the development . 3) Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any other revoking and re - enacting that Order) no development relating to Class A, B, C, D or E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 (erection of extensions; alterations to the roof; buildings incidental t o the enjoyment of the dwelling house; the insertion, enlargement, improvement or replacement of windows or doors; erection or construction of a porch) , or relating to Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 (erection of walls, fences, enclosures) shall be underta ken without the prior written approval of the l ocal p lanning a uthority. End of Schedule⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
I have therefore omitted condition 2 and have replaced con dition 5 with one , that requires the approval of the details of the proposed boundary fence and its installation . 21. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that where an application under section 73 of the Act is granted , the relevant conditions from th e original planning permission should be repeated unless they have already been discharged. 22. The Council have not suggested the reimposition of condition 3 which requires the approval of materials for the external elevation and roof of the bungalow . I cons ider that the utilised material s are acceptable, and the appearance of the completed development is satisfactory, and as such I agree that the condition is no longer necessary. 23. The PPG indicates that permitted development rights should only be removed in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the removal of certain permitted development rights relating to extensions , including porches , alterations , boundary treatments and outbuildi ngs is necessary in the inte rests of safeguarding the living Conclusion 24. For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the ap…
⚖️ 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.
📊 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.