🏆 Winning Arguments

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…

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 environme…

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

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…

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 …

41. Whilst t he proposal would be inappropriate development, there would be no spatial loss of openness and only a small loss of visual openness associat ed with the reconfiguration of the farm building ’s floorspace . Consequently , the proposal would have a minor impact on Green Belt openness , to which I am required to accord substantial weight . The proposal would have a neutral impact on the significance of nearby heritage assets . 42. Set against this, the proposal would visually enhance the site and the countryside, improve biodiversity and sustainabilit y , and provid e social and economic benefits . 43. Weighing these matters together, I find that the other considerations in this case clearly outweigh the harm identified. Looking at the case as a whole, very special circumstances exist which justify the development. Conditions 44. The Framework sets out that conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. I have assessed the sugges ted list of Conclusion 57. The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green…

As well as the standard time limit condition (1) I have specified the approved plan to provide certainty (2). A condition is necessary to ensure that drainage is provided in an acceptable manner (3) and to comply with the provisions of Policies CC2 and CC3 of the CLP. 17. Conditions relating to materials ( 4 ) and boundary treatments (5) are necessary to protect the character and appearance of the area . Conditions relating to the provision of off - street vehicle parking (6) and the retention of garage space for car parking ( 7) are necessary to ensure that adequate vehicle parking is available for the lifetime of the development, in accordance with Policies BT4 and CC2 of the CLP. A condition relating to the provision of bat boxes (8) is necessary to enhance habitats for prote cted species in accordance with Policy GN3 of the CLP. 18. Conditions ensuring that the use of the annexe remains ancillary to the residential use of the main dwelling (9) and preventing additional window or similar openings being created (10) are necessary to protect neighbours’ living Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. M Cryan

Main Issue 14. Th e m ain issue is : i) W hether the proposal would be acceptable with regard to protected species and biodiversity. Reasons 15. Based on the Ecological Appraisal, the appeal site is assessed as having generally a low ecological value, comprising common and structurally poor habitats typical of derelict rural land, with limited species diversity and weak habitat connectivity. 16. The proposed development , three dwellings with associated access and garden s, would affect only the northern portion of the land, leaving the southern half un developed . While the scheme has some p…