🏆 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 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…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3326693 (West Berkshire District Council) — 2024-05-01
📍 West Berkshire District Council LPA code: E06000037 PINS reference: 3326693 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - i nspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 December 2023 by A Coombes Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/W0340/D/23/3326693 Hornhill, Sanham Green, H ungerford RG17 0RR 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 S Jones against the decision of West Berkshire Council. The application Ref 2 2/02869/HOUSE , dated 21 November 2022 , was refused by notice dated 9 May 2023. The development proposed is erection of detached garage and greenhouse. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of detached garage and greenhouse at Hornhill, Sanham Green, Hungerford RG17 0RR , in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 22/02869/HOUSE , dated 21 November 2022 and subject to the following co nditions: 1) The development is hereby permitted and shall begin no 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 , including the materials specified t hereon : 180332 - 01 and unnumbered S ite P lan & E levations dated 10 November 2022. 3) Any trees, shrubs or plants along the boundary of the site with the highway that are removed, die or become seriously damaged during construction of the garage hereby approved, or within five years of the completion of the garage shall be replaced in the next available planting season by plants of the same size and species. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a repr esentative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal . Preliminary Matters 3. On 22 November 2023, all designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty therefore made reference to NLs in my recommendation and specifically referred to the North Wessex Downs AONB as the North Wessex Downs National Landscape (NWDNL). However, for the avoidance of doubt, the legal Appeal Decision APP/W0340/D/23/3326693 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 designation and policy status of these areas are unchanged, and I have proceeded on this basis. 4. The Government published a revised version of the National Pl anning Policy Framework (Framework) on 19 December 2023. Whilst I have had regard to the revised national policy as a material consideration, planning decisions must still be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indic ate 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. 5. During the appeal process, the appellant sought to submit an amended plan which changed the location of the proposed garage. That would be a material change to the scheme, on which the Council and interested pa rties have not had the opportunity to comment. Therefore, there is the potential for prejudice to other parties if I were to accept that plan . Therefore, I have considered the appeal on the plans that were before the Council at the time of its decision . M ain Issue 6. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance o f the area including the NWDNL . Reasons for the Recommendation 7. The appeal site is a generously sized plot in a rural setting , set within the NWDNL . The area is characterised by fields with sporadic residential development and areas of woodland. 8. The existing large dwelling was recently built and replaced a smaller dwelling , with permission having been granted with reference to Policy C7 of the Ho using Site Allocations Development Plan Document (2006 - 2026) (DPD). From the information before me, that policy sets out criteria to require replacement dwellings to be proportionate in size and scale to the existing dwelling. The curren t proposal before me is not for a replacement dwelling however, but for outbuildings for an existing dwelling. DPD Policy C6 is therefore relevant to this appeal, which allows for extensions and alterations to existing permanent dwellings. 9. Policy D6 refer s to the scale of the enlargement relative to the original dwelling , wh ich the supporting text defines as the dwelling as it was built, or as it was on 1 July 1948. The existing dwelling was a replacement rather than an extension of the previous dwelling a nd has not been enlarged since it was built. Therefore, for the purposes of Policy D6, the original dwelling is the existing dwelling. 10. The proposed garage would be built in materials to match the existing brick house, which would be materially different to the more modest existing timber shed. However, the garage would still be significantly smaller than the dwelling and in terms of scale and appearance, it would be subservient to the main dwelling and would respect its design and character. 11. The garage woul d be set down such that only the upper part would be visible from the road. Furthermore, no windows are proposed on the elevation facing Appeal Decision APP/W0340/D/23/3326693 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 the highway. As the building would be forward of the dwelling, any further windows would require planning permission. C onsequently, the garage would not be seen as the dominant building within the site and would have the appearance of an outbuilding, which is a common feature in a residential plot. 12. There are several examples of nearby development sited a similar distance from the front boundary, with the most notable example being the substantial converted barn opposite. Therefore, the garage would not appear incongruous within the surrounding context or harmful to the character and appearance of the area or the scenic bea uty or landscape character of the NWDNL. 13. The modestly sized proposed greenhouse would be situated an adequate distance from both the main dwelling and the proposed garage to maintain the spaciousness of the appeal site and the wider rural setting. 14. The pr oposed development would result in an increase in built form on the plot, even with the removal of the existing shed and temporary greenhouse structure. However, it is a large plot and therefore would be able to accommodate these additions without it appea ring cramped or adversely affecting the space occupied within the plot boundary . There would remain ample space around the dwelling and a large area to the front, retaining the spacious feel of the site. Consequently, it would remain sympathetic to local r ural character and would not harm the wider landscape character. 15. Therefore, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area, including the NWDNL. It would therefore comply with P olic ies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy, adopted 2012 and DPD Policies C3 and C6 . Together these policies seek high quality design that respects and enhances the character of the area. 16. The development would conflict with elements of the guidanc House Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance , adopted 2004 , which recommends that garages should normally be located to the side or rear of dwellings and be set back from the highway. However, the SP D acts as guidance and development must be considered on a case - by - case basis and, as outlined above, the proposal would be appropriate for this site in this context . 17. There would be no conflict with the guidance in the Quality Design Supplementary Planning Document , adopted 2006 , which hi ghlights the importance of good design . Nor would there be conflict with the Framework requirements that developments are sympathetic to local character and conserve and enhance landscape and scenic beauty in NLs. Conditions 18. In addition to the standard tim e period for commencement of the development, a condition to ensure that the development accords with the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty . 19. The materials for the garage need to be secured by condition to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. As the materials are specified on the plans however, there is no need for a separate condition in this respect. The site is in a rural area with few neighbours, therefore a condition controlling working hours is not necessary to safeguard living conditions. Appeal Decision APP/W0340/D/23/3326693 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 20. The Council recommends removal of permitted development rights for windows under Classes A, B and C of the Town and Country Planning (Gene ral Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). These Classes relate to dwellinghouses however, not to outbuildings. Those are covered by Class E, which does not allow for alterations to outbuildings of this size, or where they are sited forw ard of the dwelling. Therefore, planning permission would be required for the alterations the Council is concerned about, and a condition is not necessary. 21. The garage would be close to an existing , recently planted hedge which provides an attractive fronta ge to the site and t here is potential for indirect or direct impacts on the hedge during construction . It is not reasonable to require protection of the hedge due to the proximity of the proposed garage, nor can the resiting of the garage requested by the by condition. Nevertheless, a condition requiring replacement of any planting removed, damaged or which dies because of the garage construction is necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. I have am Conclusion and Recommendation 22. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions . A Coombes APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER 23. I have considered all the submitted evidence report and I agree with the reasoning and recommendation. O n that basis the appeal allowed subject to the conditions listed above. L McKay INSPECTOR⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
However, the SP D acts as guidance and development must be considered on a case - by - case basis and, as outlined above, the proposal would be appropriate for this site in this context . 17. There would be no conflict with the guidance in the Quality Design Supplementary Planning Document , adopted 2006 , which hi ghlights the importance of good design . Nor would there be conflict with the Framework requirements that developments are sympathetic to local character and conserve and enhance landscape and scenic beauty in NLs. Conditions 18. In addition to the standard tim e period for commencement of the development, a condition to ensure that the development accords with the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty . 19. The materials for the garage need to be secured by condition to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. As the materials are specified on the plans however, there is no need for a separate condition in this respect. The site is in a rural area with few neighbours, therefore a condition controlling working hours is not necessary to safeguard living Conclusion and Recommendation 22. For the reasons given above and having had regard to a…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3325862 (Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames) — 2024-03-15
📍 Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames LPA code: E09000021 PINS reference: 3325862 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 February 202 4 by B Pattison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 March 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/Z5630/W/23/3325862 16 Acacia Grove , New Malden, London KT3 3BJ 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 My Jon Sta ndley, Standley Property Ltd against the decision of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon T hames . The application Ref 23/00808/FUL , dated 6 April 2023 , was refused by notice dated 1 June 2023 . The development proposed is demolition of existing 3 bed dwelling and garages and erection of new flatted development of 3 storeys consisting of 1no. 3 bed and 3 no. 2 bed apartments with associated landscaping and on site parking . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of existing 3 bed dwelling and garages and erection of new flatted development of 3 storeys consisting of 1no. 3 bed and 3 no. 2 bed apartments with associated landscaping and on site parking in accordance with the terms of the applicati on, Ref 23/00808/FUL , dated 6 April 202 3 , and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out at the end of this decision letter . Preliminary Matter 2. The Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in Dec ember 2023, replacing the previous version dating from September 2023. The amendments made did not have any bearing on the issues in this appeal, and it was therefore not necessary to seek comments from the main parties on the updated Framework. Where I ha ve referred to specific paragraphs of the Framework, the numbering used is that of the December 2023 version. Main Issue s 3. The main issue s in this appeal are: the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area ; the effect of the proposal s on the living conditions of the occupiers of 18 Acacia Grove with particular regard to privacy ; and the effect of the proposed car parking provision on highway safety . Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/23/3325862 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal site comprises a two - storey dwelling with detached garages located to the rear . The property sits back from the highway in a fairly modest plot within a predominantly residential location which contain s a mix of detached and semi - detached dwelli ngs , which are generally two storey in height, but are varied in design, scale and use of external materials. 5. The appeal site is situated within the Lime Grove Local Area of Special Character (LGLASC), which the Council describe as being a non - designated h eritage asset (NDHA) . Whilst the property is not statutorily listed nor in a conservation area, paragraph 20 9 of the Framework states that the effect of an application on the significance of a NDHA should be taken into account in determining the applicatio n. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly a NDHA, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. 6. From my observations on site, the significance of the NDHA derives from the arrangement of historic buildings, of varying designs, often with front gables. The plots are set along a consistent building line, a little way back from enclosed frontages , which are often marked by planting adjoining the highway . 7. The appeal building is part of a broadly symmetrical group of three residential buildings comprising 16 - 20 Acacia Grove . 16 and 20 are two storey buildings which are position ed either side of No. 18 , a brick faced building which is three storey s in height, with additional roof level accommodation . To the rear of the properties on this part of Acacia Grove is Charter Court, a large four storey block of flats which is visible in vi ews between properties. 8. A number of properties on this side of Acacia Grove have single and two storey rear projections which project into their rear gardens thereby creating deeper plan buildings. The proposed replacement of the existing two storey house with a deeper plan three storey block of flats with a stepped rear elevation would fit reasonably well within this context as the appeal site is large enough to accommodate the building without appearing cramped or overdeveloped. 9. Whilst not matching the height of No 20 the proposal would be clearly subservient in height to the taller, centrally located No 18 heigh t would crea te a visual transition to the low er two storey buildings at 14A - 14D Acacia Grove. The use of a hipped roof for the top floor would help to minimise the bulk and massing of the building . The front gable features would visually break the massing of the front elevation and would also reflect the gable s on the front elevation s of both 18 and 20 , and found widely across the NDHA, thereby reinforcing the character of the area . In this regard, it would successfully assimilate with the built context, and I note that Paragraph 135 of the Framework states that developments should be sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change such as increased densities . 10. The proposed design contains sufficient features , such as ground floo r bay windows , which would reflect the bay windows at No 20 to enable the building Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/23/3325862 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 to blend comfortably into the varied street scene. T he proposed external materials and fenestration would add to the varied palette of materials, and would not detract from the character and appearance of this particular street scene. The submitted evidence indicates that two trees would be planted adjacent to the front boundary thereby reinstating plan t ing adjacent to the highway , which is a notable characteristic of the NDHA . 11. The existing appeal building has a rear dormer window , whilst No 20 has two rear dormers. Consequently, the proposed second floor rear dormer would not be an uncharacteristic feature . F urthermore, the central positioning of the dormer within the rear roof ensures that it would not be a prominent feature and would not be visible in view s from Acacia Grove . Whilst there are limited examples of existing balconies on the street, project thereby ensuring that they would not be unduly prominent. 12. Consequently, taking this and the wider character considerations, such as the varied nature and appearance of nearby properties into account, the proposal would accord with the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would preserve the signifi cance that the L GL ASC has as a NDHA. 13. For the above reasons, I find no conflict with policies CS8 , DM10 and DM12 of gy ( 2012 ) (CS) which concern design and the protection and conservation of heritage assets, and which seek to prote ct local distinctiveness . Living conditions for neighbouring occupiers 14. relate to overlooking from the proposed balconies into the neighbouring rear private amenity space of No.1 8 and the potential for a perceived loss of privacy for the occupiers of that property . Interested parties have also raised concerns about the impact on properties within Charter Court, located to the rear of the appeal site , which is a considerable distance fro m the appeal property beyond a communal car parking area. 15. At present, t to the rear of its garden, albeit they allow angled views to the rear of neighbouring gardens on Acacia Grove . A s a result , p roperties on Acacia Grove already experience a degree of mutual overlooking between properties and gardens which is common within a residential area such as this. 16. The proposal would include balconies at first and second floor level . The submitted drawings indicate that privacy screens up to 1.8 metres in height would be installed on the perimeters of the balconies . The privacy screen s would be made of opaque glass and consequently would be effective in preventing any meaningful degree of overlooking from the balconies towards e ither the windows within the rear elevation of No 18 or the areas of its garden closest to the dwelling , thereby ensuring the privacy of occupiers is adequately protected. The installation and retention of the privacy screens can be secured by condition. 17. Given the extent of existing mutual overlooking into the gardens of other Acacia Grove properties , and the considerable distance to Charter Court, I do Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/23/3325862 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 not find that the balconies would result in a harmful loss of privacy for these neighbouring occupiers . 18. Consequently, the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Therefore, in this respect, it would not be contrary to the principles outlined within paragra ph 13 5 of th e Framework which seeks development which promote s health and well - being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users . Car parking 19. Policy DM9 of the CS require s new development to comply with car parking standards . The s upporting text to the policy states that t o manage demand for vehicle use, the Council supports the policy approach of the London Plan (LP) of applying parking standards for new development to ensure that there is no over - provision of parking tha t could undermine the use of sustainable modes of transport. 20. The site is within an area with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 3 which indicates moderate access to frequent public transport services . My attention has been drawn to the LP park ing standards , which for development s in PTAL 3 area s , highlight a maximum provision of 0.75 spaces for each 1 or 2 bed dwelling , and up to 1 space for each 3 or more bed dwelling. For the proposed mix of units, this amounts to a maximum provision of 3.25 spaces. The submitted drawings show that the proposal would provide 2 off - street spaces . 21. I have not been provided with detailed information in respect of car parking demand in Acacia Grove. However , the appeal site is within walking distance of local shop s and facilities in New Malden. The site is also locate d approximately 200 metres from New Malden Train Station and 240 metres from the Cambridge Avenue bus stop on Coombe Road, and has therefore been evidenced as having reasonable access to public transport. Future occupiers would therefore benefit from opportunities to trav el by modes other than by private vehicles, reducing reliance on these and the requirement for on - site parking. 22. I acknowledge the comments of neighbouring residents, in particular in relation to parking associated with com m uters accessing the local train s tation . However, the provision of two off - street parking space s accords with the maximum parking standard s set out within the LP , and it also follows the approach outlined within Policy DM9 to ensure that there is no over - provision of parking . 23. I have not b een provided with a signed and dated Unilateral Undertaking making provision for a restriction to prevent future occupiers from applying for street parking permit s in the event that a controlled parking zone ( CPZ ) i s introduced to the surrounding streets in the future. Policy DM9 states that development should restrict eligibility for on - street parking permits for residents of new developments located with in controlled parking zones. However, f rom the evidence before me , the site is not located within a CPZ . 24. I have considered the requirement for a planning obligation in the light of the statutory tests contained in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010. A s I have found that the prop osed parking Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/23/3325862 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 provision would be adequate to serve future occupiers and there is not a policy requirement to prevent future occupiers from applying for parking permit s, I cannot be certain that a legal agreement is necessary or fairly and reasonably related in scale or kind to the proposal before me. 25. Consequently, I am satisfied that future occupiers of the proposed dwellings would have options other than the private motor car and the proposed parking provision would be adequate to serve future occupiers and would not significantly impact on demand for on - street parking . 26. In finding no unacceptable harm, I find no conflict with Policy DM 9 of the CS which seeks to ensure that new development does not contribute to congestion or compromise highway safety . The proposal also complies with paragraph 115 of the Framework which states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Other Matters 27. Concerns have been raised in rela tion to the effect of the proposal on future occupiers as a result of limited outlook, overheating, insufficient internal floor to ceiling heights and the width of the side entrance and access. Each of the units meet the space standards set by the LP and e ach have windows on more then one elevation, thereby providing opportunities for cross - ventilation. Overall, I have been provided with no substantive evidence which would conclusions that the quality of accommodati on would be acceptable and t hat there would be no unacceptable harm in these respects. 28. Any noise and disturbance and effect on access associated with construction would be for a temporary period only, and I have imposed a condition requiring the submission of a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to manage the noise and highway impacts during construction. 29. Three trees on the site are identified for removal including a Common Lime at the front of the property which is identified as being a category C1 tree which h as been pollarded, is located within a hard surfaced area and which has suffered mechanical damage. Furthermore, I have included a condition requiring the submission of a detailed arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan to ens ure that off - site trees are protected. Landscaping and Planting Plan indicates the re - provision of three trees with in the appeal site and I have imposed a condition requiring the details of this r eplacement tree planting . 30. I nterested part ies ha ve referred to an appeal decision a t Thetford Road (APP/Z5 630/W/21/3266585) and I have considered the information provided . I acknowledge that in that instance the Inspector found that the proposal would not provide a satisfactory level of amenity. Howe ver, that proposal related to a greater number of flats, and the access to the communal area appears to have been along a longer enclosed alley between the building and fencing to a private amenity area . As a result, the layout is different to the proposal before me . In any event, each case must be considered on its own merits , circumstances and situation. Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/23/3325862 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 31. Interested parties have raised concerns about the potential loss of natural light, privacy and outlook for occupiers of neighbouring properties. As the sides of the upper floor balconies would be obscure glazed and conditioned to remain as such, I do not f ind harm to the living conditions of any neighbouring occupiers. Given the separation distances and stepped design of the rear elevation, I do not find harm to the living condition s of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook and natural light. 32. In rel ation to the effect of the proposal on the ability of the occupiers of No 18 to carry out maintenance on their property, this is a private matter to be resolved by the parties and is therefore not relevant to my decision. 33. A number of other matters have bee n raised by interested parties and I have taken them all into account. Those related to planning include the safety of demolition of the appeal property, mix of residential units, designing out crime, drainage and insufficient renewable energy measures. Ho wever, whilst I take these representations seriously, I h ave not been presented with compelling evidence to demonstrate that the appeal proposal would result in unacceptable effects. Consequently, they do not lead me to a different overall conclusion. 34. Any concerns regarding due process during the processing of the planning application, including public consultation, fall outside of the remit of this decision. Conditions 35. I have had regard to the various planning conditions that have been suggested. I have considered them against the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). I have made such amendments as necessary to comply with those documents and for clarity and consistency. 36. In addition to the standard time limit, I have imposed an approved plans condition in the interests of certainty. 37. A condition requiring the development to be constructed with the external materials identified by the approved plans and application form is necessary in the int erests of the character and appearance of the area . Likewise, a condition related to the approval of hard and soft landscaping is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. However, I have modified the landscaping condition bec ause the details are not required prior to the commencement of above ground works . 38. In order to minimise disruption to surrounding highways and residents it is necessary to approve a Construction Management Plan which includes details relating to the contro l of construction traffic , noise and dust during construction. To prevent damage to trees I have included a condition requiring the submission of a detailed arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan. 39. C ondition s restricting the use of areas o f flat roof as outdoor amenity space , and requiring the installation of privacy screening are necessary to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. 40. I have included a condition to limit water usage in the interests of promoting sustainable d esign practices. A condition requiring the submission of a Fire Safety Strategy is necessary in the interests of fire safety. Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/23/3325862 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 41. In the interests of waste management and to encourage sustainable transport I have included conditions requiring the provision of refuse , recycling and cycle storage. I have modified both condition s because the details are not required prior to commencement of above ground works. I have included a condition requiring the provision of car parking for residents in the interests of highway safety. Conclusion 42. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposed development would accor d with the development plan and the Framework. The appeal is therefore allowed. B Pattison INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/23/3325862 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 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 plan s: Site Location Plan - P(0)001; Block Plan - P(0)002 ; Existing Ground Floor Plan - P(0)100 ; Existing First Floor Plan - P(0)101 ; Existing Roof Plan - P(0)102 ; Existing Section AA - P(0)104 ; Existing North Elevation - P(0)105 ; Existing South Elevation - P(0)106 ; Existing East Elevation - P(0)107 1:100 @ A3 ; Proposed Ground Floor Plan - P(0)11 0; Pr oposed First Floor Plan - P(0)111 ; Proposed Second Floor Plan - P(0)112 ; Proposed Roof Plan - P(0)113; Fire Plans - P(0)150 ; Section AA - P(0)200 ; Site Section - P(0)210 ; Proposed North (front) Elevation - P(0)300 Rev P1 ; North Elevation - P(0)300 1:100 @ A3 ; Proposed South (rear) Elevation - P(0)301 Rev P1 1:100 ; South Elevation - P(0)30 1; Proposed East (side) Elevation - P(0)302 Rev P1 ; East Elevation - P(0)302 ; Context Street Elevation Existing and Proposed - P(0)310 Rev P1 ; Context Elevation - P(0)310 ; Landscape Plan and Planting - P(0)530 . 3) No development shall take place until a construction management plan (CMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the approved CMP shall be implemented and adhered t o throughout the entire construction period. The CMP shall include the following details: i) How the proposed development will be built; ii) Hours of working (which shall be limited to 08.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays and between 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturda ys and not at all on Bank Holidays and Sundays); iii) The procedure for loading/unloading materials; iv) The route to and away from site for muck away and vehicles with materials; v) The protocol for managing deliveries to one vehicle at a time on sites wi th restricted access or space; vi) The protocol for managing vehicles that need to wait for access to the site; vii) Whether any reversing manoeuvres are required onto or off the public highway into the site and whether a banksman will be provided; viii)Temporary site access; ix) Signing system for works traffic; x) Whether site access warning signs will be required in adjacent roads; xi) Whether it is anticipated that statutory undertaker connections will be required int o the site; xii) The storage of plant, materials and operatives vehicles; Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/23/3325862 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 xiii) The potential for impacts from dust and emissions during the demolition and/or construction phase upon local air quality and surrounding residents; xiv) Measures for the laying of dust, suppression of noise and abatement of other nuisance arising from development works; xv) The location of all ancillary site buildings; xvi) The means of enclosure of the site, its erection and maintenance; xvii) Wheel washing equipment; xviii) Th e parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; xix) Meeting the requirements of the Low Emission Zone for Non - Road Mobile Machinery (where relevant plant or vehicles are being used); xx) The method of recycling and disposing of waste resulting fro m the demolition and/or construction phases ; and xxi) Deliveries/collections to and from the site shall use a route that is agreed with the highway authority and the agreed route shall be signed accordingly. 4) No development shall take place until a detailed arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the approved details shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period. The submi ssion shall include : A plan to a scale and level of accuracy appropriate to the proposal, that shows the positions, crown spreads and root protection areas (RPA) of every retained tree on site, and on nearby ground or land adjacent to the site ; A schedule of pre - construction works for the above - detailed trees, where appropriate ; Calculated dimensions and positions of all tree root protection areas ; Details and positions of tree protection barriers and ground protection where appropriate ; Details and positio ns of any construction exclusion zones ; Details and positions of the existing and proposed underground service runs, to be routed to avoid root protection areas where possible and if not possible, for alternative methods of installation to be detailed with in the arboricultural method statement ; Details and positions of any change in levels or positions of any excavations within 5m of the root protection area of retained trees. Details of any special engineering required to accommodate proposals within the r oot protection areas of retained trees (e.g. in connection with foundations, service installation, bridging, water features, surfacing) ; and Details of the working methods to be employed for the installation of drives, paths or any other form of hard surfacing within the root Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/23/3325862 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 protection areas of retained trees in accordance with the principles of 'No Dig' construction. All details shall be in accordance with British Standard BS5837: 2012 "Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction" . 5) The development shall not progress above the damp proof course of the new building until a Fire Safety Strategy which shall reference the London Plan Guidance: Fire Safety (February 2022), where applicable, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the relevant works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Fire Safety Strategy. The Fire Safet y Strategy shall include a statement of competence, demonstrate how the development will achieve the highest standards of fire safety and shall include the following details: 1) Suitably positioned outside space for fire appliances/an evacuation assembly p oint; 2) Appropriate fire alarm systems; 3) Passive and active fire safety measures; 4) Appropriate construction details to minimise the risk of fire spread; 5) Provision of suitable and convenient means of escape/ an evacuation strategy; 6) Provision of s uitable access and equipment for firefighting which is appropriate for the size and use of the development; and 7) Provision, where applicable of a Reasonable Exception Statement (RES) in relation to those fire safety requirements which the applicant does not consider to be relevant. 6) The development shall not be occupied until evidence showing that the development will achieve internal water usage rates of no greater than 105L per person per day ha s been submitted to and approved in writing by the L ocal P l anning A uthority. Any measures necessary to meet the targets shall be installed prior to the occupation of the development and maintained in an operable condition thereafter . 7) The development shall not be occupied until a detailed landscape and planting plan ha s been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include a clear key or legend and shall provide the following information: Spec ies (both Latin & Common names) for all plants; Locations of all plants or areas of planting; Plant numbers or planting densities; Sizes of all plants and particularly trees 'at time of planting'; and Details of all hard - landscaping areas including materia ls. The hard landscaping shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the development and maintained thereafter and the soft landscaping comprised in the approved details shall be implemented in the first planting season following the occupation of the first dwelling. If, within a period of 5 years from the completion of development, any of the trees or plants that form part of the approved details of soft landscaping, die, are Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/23/3325862 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 removed or become seriously damaged or diseased they shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. 8) The development shall not be occupied until details of refuse and recycling facilities to serve the development have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The refuse and recycling facilities as shown in the approved details shall be provided prior to the occupation of the development and shall be permanently retained thereafter. 9) The development shall not be occupied until details of secure cycle parking facilities to serve the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the L ocal P lanning A uthority. The cycle parking facilities shall be installed prior to the occupation of the development and maintained thereafter for the lifetime of the development. 10) The development shall not be occupied until the parking spaces shown on the approved plans have been provided with a hard - bound, adequately - drained, dust - free surface. The parking spaces shall thereafter be kept available for the parking of vehicles. 11) The d evelopment shall not be occupied until privacy screening which is 1.7m in height , as measured from the floor level adjacent to the screen, has been erected along the sides of the balconies and/or terraces in accordance with the approved plans. Aside from e ssential fixings, the screen s shall be constructed entirely of obscure glazing to a minimum of level 3 on the standard scale. Any film used to achieve the requisite obscurity level shall be non - perishable, tamper - proof, and shall be replaced immediately in the event that it ceases to result in obscurity to level 3. Once installed the privacy screening shall be retained thereafter. 12) The external surfaces of the development shall be constructed in the materials specified on the approved plans and on the applic ation form . 13) P(0)111 and P(0)112 , t he roof area of the development shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area. END OF SCHEDULE⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
However, I have modified the landscaping condition bec ause the details are not required prior to the commencement of above ground works . 38. In order to minimise disruption to surrounding highways and residents it is necessary to approve a Construction Management Plan which includes details relating to the contro l of construction traffic , noise and dust during construction. To prevent damage to trees I have included a condition requiring the submission of a detailed arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan. 39. C ondition s restricting the use of areas o f flat roof as outdoor amenity space , and requiring the installation of privacy screening are necessary to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. 40. I have included a condition to limit water usage in the interests of promoting sustainable d esign practices. A condition requiring the submission of a Fire Safety Strategy is necessary in the interests of fire safety. Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/23/3325862 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 41. In the interests of waste management and to encourage sustainable transport I have included Conclusion 42. For the above reasons, and having h…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3328518 (Herefordshire Council) — 2024-04-29
📍 Herefordshire Council LPA code: E06000019 PINS reference: 3328518 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 March 2024 by M Aqbal BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 April 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/W1850/W/23/3328518 Oaklands, Peterchurch, Herefordshire HR2 0SP The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a grant of planning permission subject to conditions. The appeal is made by Mr Robert Peel against the decision of Herefordshire Counc il. The application Ref 231547 was approved on 24 July 2023 and planning permission was granted subject to conditions. The development permitted is p roposed detached garage . The condition s in dispute are N umbers 1, 3, 4 and 5 which state that: Condition 1 : The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Condition 3: The garage hereby permitted shall be used solely for the garaging of private vehicles and for purposes inciden tal to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such and not for the carrying out of any trade or business. Condition 4 : The garage and access thereto must be reserved for the garaging or parking of private motor vehicles and the garage shall at no time be c onverted to habitable accommodation. Cond ition 5 : Notwithstanding the provisions of article 3(1) and Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015,(or any order revoking or re - enacting that Order with or w ithout modification), no development which would otherwise be permitted under Class E of Part 1 and of Schedule 2, shall be carried out . The reason s given for the condition are: Condition 1 : Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Plan ning Act 1990. Condition 3: To ensure that the garage is used only for the purposes ancillary to the dwelling and to comply with Policy SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework. Condition 4: To ensure a dequate off street parking arrangements remain available at all times and to comply with Policy MT1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework Condition 5: In order to protect the character and amenity of the locality, to maintain the amenities of adjoining property and to comply with Policy SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 231547 , for proposed detached garage at Oaklands, Peterchurch, Herefordshire HR2 0SP , granted on 24 July 2023 by Herefordshire Council is varied by deleting condition s 1,4 and 5 and substituting for condition 3 the following condition. 3) The building hereby permitted shall be used solely for the garaging of private vehicle s and purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house. Appeal Decision APP/W1850/W/23/3328518 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether the disputed conditions are reasonable and necessary. Reasons Condition 1 3. T his condition seeks to ensure the implementation of the extant planning permission within three years from the determination of the application as a legislative requirement under Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 4. Ordinarily, this condi tion is discharged through the implementation of the planning permission within the relevant timescale and rarely removed . B ased on my observations and the submissions before me , th e planning permission was implemented within the relevant time scale. As such, this condition is no longer necessary. Condition 3 5. Based on the description on the application form, the approved building is a garage. A garage by definition is intended to be used for the storage of vehicles. The submissions also confirm that this building would be used as a garage for at least one car (a classic Mini) as well as other general domestic storage. This is consistent with the submitted Design and Access Statement , which also suggested that the garage would be used as a workshop. G iven the size of the garage, it is likely that this could accommodate a vehicle and allow space for a workshop and storage, incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house . 6. G iven the overall scale of the garage and its proximity to a neighbouring property, I understand the concern of the Local Planning Authorit y that this could be used for a trade or business, to the detriment of the living conditions of neighbours. Even so , if the garage is used in such a manner, then th e LPA have other powers to deal with this . 7. Nevertheless, the approv e d building was proposed, considered and determined as a garage for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house . As such, to de fine the permission and to ensure that the garage is used for its intended purpose, vehicle parking and purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house , I have suggested an alternative condition 3. Condition 4 8. Th e LPA advise that condition 4 is necessary to ensure that the building remains available for the parking of vehicles and is no t utilised as habitable accommodation without assessment of any associated impacts given the wider context of the site and scale of the garaging. This includes, the use of the approved building as habitable space, which the LPA asserts would result in the loss of parking space s within the garage and potential increased parking requirements associated with additional occupation. 9. Notwithst anding the approved garage, the appellant advises that there is currently sufficient on - site parking and manoeuvring/turning space to enter and leave the site in a forward direction. I also observed th is and have no Appeal Decision APP/W1850/W/23/3328518 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 evidence to the contrary to suggest that without the approved garage , the host dwelling would have insufficient on - s ite parking. 10. Whilst I note the LPAs concern about the use of the garage for habitable accommodation, such a proposal is not before me. As such, and in light of my proposed condition 3, I am not persuaded that c ondition 4 is necessary or reasonable. Condition 5 11. The National Planning Policy Framework says that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is cle ar justification to do so. 12. Disputed c ondition 5 , removes permitted development rights under Class E of the GPDO for : the provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of (a) any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such, or the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of such a building or enclosure; o r (b) a container used for domestic heating purposes for the storage of oil or liquid petroleum gas . 13. Al though the approved garage occupies a sizeable footprint , this is la rgely located to the side of the host dwelling. Because of this arrangement and despite incorporating a number of smaller buildings and structures , the host dwelling retains a large rear garden . This garden area is also set back from the highway and is in part screened by boundary treatments . 14. Moreover, the host dwelling benefits from a more generous plot relative to neighbouring properties and forms part of an established resi dential area , where buildings in rear gardens are not un common . 15. Furthermore, permitted development right s under Class E of the GPDO are subject to certain limitations and conditions , which control the scale and extent of such development . 16. Drawing on the above reasons , I am not persuaded that the appeal site is particularly vulnerable to overdevelopment or that by utilising permitted development rights under Class E of the GPDO , this would result in any unacceptable harm to the character of the plot an d amenity of the wider residential context . As such, condition 5 is not reasonable , necessary or justified. Other Matters 17. F ollowing the granting of the extant planning permission, Natural England have advised the LPA of increased Impact Risk Zones , which includes the appeal site . Although I have been provided limited information on this matter , the LPA assert that because the garage includes a toilet any change to the use that would increase water flows (such as conversion to habitable space rather than ancillary garaging to the host dwelling and existing occupants) would require the undertaking of Habitat Regulations Asses sment by the competent body. 18. However , the proposal is not for a change of use. In fact , the proposal is for a domestic extension ( incorporat ing a toilet ) to an existing dwelling . Therefore , Appeal Decision APP/W1850/W/23/3328518 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 on th is basis, I have no reason t o conclude that a HRA is necessary for the proposal before me . Conclusio n 19. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will delet e disputed conditions 1, 4 and 5 and substitut e condition 3 for an alternative condition 3 . M Aqbal INSPECTOR
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3319951 (Bedford Borough Council) — 2024-03-15
📍 Bedford Borough Council LPA code: E06000055 PINS reference: 3319951 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 October 2023 by G Sibley MPLAN MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 th March 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/K0235/W/23/3319951 18 - 20 Woodfield Lane, Renhold MK41 0LH 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 Cedarwood Projects Ltd against the decision of Bedford Borough Council. The application Ref is 23/00121/FUL . The development proposed is d emolition of existing 2 no. bungalows and outbuilding and the erection of 2 no. 3 bedroom dwellings and 1 no. 2 bedroom bungalow and the creation of new access from the highway. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for d emolition of existing 2 no. bungalows and outbuilding and the erection of 2 no. 3 bedroom dwellings and 1 no. 2 bedroom bungalow and the creation of new access from the highway at 18 - 20 Woodfield Lane, Renhold MK41 0LH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/00121/FUL, dated 19 January 2023, subject to the conditions contained in the Schedule of Conditions at the end of this decision. Application for C osts 2. An application for costs has been made by Cedarwood Project s Ltd against Bedford Borough Council and is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matter s 3. - development as this is an address and not a description of development. As such I am satisfied that this would not prejudice the parties . 4. The application form identified the site as 18 Woodfield Lane however, b oth the decision notice and the appeal form identify the address of the site as 18 - 20 Woodfield Lane . B ased on the information before me that would a ppear to be the most accurate address for the appeal site as it comprises th ose dwellings. Given that both parties have used this address , I have used it in my decision. 5. A discrepancy between the plans was identified during the determination of the appeal . There was a two - storey gable shown on the rear elevation on Drawing No. 03 - 03 - 30 P3 which was not shown on the other plans . Drawing No. 03 - 03 - 30 P4 was then submitted by the appellant which removed the two - storey project ion from the rear of the building . T he revised plan would remove a matter of ambiguity that would correct a mistake between the drawings. The Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/23/3319951 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 council were subsequently given the opportunity to comment on the revised drawing and did not object to the inclusion of it . I therefore accept the revised plan and determine the appeal with regard to Drawing No. 03 - 03 - 30 P4. 6. Since the council issued its decision t he National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was updated. The parties were given the opportunity to provide c omments on the updates to the Framework and I have taken them into account. Main Issue 7. The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 8. There are two semi - detached bungalows on the site that are setback from the roadside behind gardens and driveways. The relatively deep setback of the bungalows is consistent with the other houses in the immediate area which generally have low - level or no boundary treatment along the highway. The houses in the area themselves vary in design , scale and siting and this creates an attractive variety to the street scene . The site is located at the end of Woodfield Lane and beyond the site is open fields, as is the case opposite the site. Th e setback and siting of the houses as well as the limited boundary treatment contributes to the spacious and verdant character of the street scene. Within the wider area there are several houses that have been built to the rear of plots. These are visible within the street scene and form part of the pattern of development for the area. 9. The proposed development would involve the demolition of the exis ting bungalows and outbuilding and the construction of two, two storey dwellings located to the front of the site and a bungalow to the rear. 10. I have been directed to an appeal for 3 dwellings that was dismissed on this site (Ref: APP/K0235/W/22/3297062) . Th at I nspector identified that t h e previous scheme would appear cramped and overdeveloped which would result in the loss of spaciousness when compared with the existing development . 11. The scale of the houses and the associated plot ratios were identified by the Inspector as issues with the previous scheme. By reducing the scale of the proposed houses, t he depth of the rear gardens for P lots 1 and 2 would now be similar to other properties along Woodfield Lane and as such the size of these gardens would be appropriate relative to the size of the houses. 12. The houses would also have a larger gap between them than the dismissed scheme and this would be relatively consistent with those gaps between other dwellings along Woodfield Lane. Furthermore, either side of these two houses there would be spacious gaps to 16a Woodfield Lane and the open fields next to the site. This would generally be in accordance with the minimum distances between si de boundaries as set out in N3 Residential Extensions, New Dwellings and Small Infill Developments Design Guidance (Design Guidance). The depth of the rear gardens would also be generally consistent with the N3 Design Guidance. Overall, these factors would ensure that an appropriate level of spaciousness would be maintained across the site. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/23/3319951 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 13. Th e smaller scale of the houses would reduce the footprint coverage of the plot ratios compared to the dismissed scheme and even when taking into consideration parking and manoeuvring spaces , these would be consistent with other dwellings in the area. The modest scale of the houses and the gaps retained between them would contribute to ensuring that the proposal would not overdevelop the site. 14. It was identified by the Inspector that the previously designed dwelling s due to their bulk would appear visually prominent. The two houses proposed as part of this scheme have been reduced in scale and set back further within the site. In comparison to the dismissed scheme this would reduce their visual prominence. Due to their scale t he houses would enclose the site to a greater degree than the existing bungalows . However, the dwellings themselves would not appear imposing given the ir modest scale compare d to the surrounding houses as well as the proposed setback from the highway and location at the end of the road. The detailed design of the houses would utilise some architectural features from the street scene without simply replicating any of the houses. This would contribute to the attractive variety in the street scene. 15. The two storey houses would be setback further from the road than the existing bungalows which would contribute to ensuring the front gardens and driveway would remain the dominant element in the street scene. The siting of the parking spaces could result in up to two cars being parked in front of each house which would detract from the openness in front of the houses. However, the vehicles would be transient and would not permanently erode the spaciousness in front of the houses . Furthermore, the associate d landscaping proposed around the parking spaces would soften the frontage of the properties . This would contribute to maintaining the verdant character of the street scene. 16. The bungalow would have a relatively simple linear design, not dissimilar to the existing outbuilding on the site. Alongside the appropriate use of materials, the design and siting of the bungalow would appear consistent with other bungalows in the area. Whilst the plot associated with the bungalow would be relatively narrow , the size of it would be consistent with other d evelopment at depth in the area. 17. Overall, the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the area. Therefore, the proposal would not conflict with Policies 28S, 29 and 30 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (BBLP) or the N 1 & N3 D esign G uidance . These seek, amongst other matters, to ensure that development contribute s positively to the character of the settlement, be of suitable form and high - quality design, and integrate with the character of the locality. Other Matters 18. The window on the flank wall of Plot 1 would look towards 16a Woodfield Lane and would serve a bedroom. This room would have two windows and as such, a condition to ensure the window that faces towards No . 16a is a non - opening or restricted opening window that has obscured glaz ing would preserve the privacy of the occupiers of No . 16a. F rom the rear first floor windows of Plot 1 there would be limited opportunities for overlooking the rear garden at No . 16a, however this would be from an oblique angle and a s such, this would not result in a harmful loss of privacy for the occupants. Additionally, the Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/23/3319951 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 orientation of the houses as well as the depth of the rear gardens would ensure that the occupiers of Plot 1 would not harmfully overlook the occupants of the proposed bungalow. 19. Given the distance from the surrounding houses, the proposed dwellings would not harmfully erode the outlook enjoyed by the surrounding occupiers. 20. No substantive evidence has been provided to identify that Woodfield Lane is at Additionally, the Highway s Officer did not object to the application, subject to conditions. The proposal seeks one additional dwelling over and above the existing situation. B ased on the evidence before me it is not evident that the traffic movements connected to the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. 21. Matters relat ed to c ovenant s are dealt with under separate legislation and are not relevant to the determination of this appeal . Conditions 22. I have considered the planning conditions suggested by the c ouncil and the appellant, having regard to the tests set out in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance . Where appropriate, I have amended the wording to ensure they are reasonable given the scale of the development and site context and to ensure that they meet all other Framework tests for conditions. 23. Further to the statutory commencement condition [1] , a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary in the interest of certainty [2] . 24. A condition requiring the submission of a detailed design of the junction of the access with the highway is n ecessary in the interest of highway safety [3]. However, there is already a surfaced vehicular access to the site. As such I have amended the timing of the condition as a pre - commencement provision does not meet the test of necessity in this instance. Cond itions requiring th at parking spaces, turning areas and accesses are properly surfaced is necessary in the interest of highway safety [4 and 5]. 25. C ondition s requiring that landscaping works [6] and boundary treatment s [8] are approved is necessary in the interest of the character and appearance of the area. However, I have amended the timing of condition 6 as a pre - commencement provision does not meet the test of necessity in this instance. I have also removed from condition 6 the requirement to provide details of any trees and hedges to be retained or removed as this is already provided in the Tree Protection Plan which has been included in the approved plans condition [2] . 26. Whilst several a rboricultural and ecological documents were prepared in support of the proposal th ese identified several ecological enhancements th at were generalised opportunities that could be incorporated. As such, a condition which ensures these enhancements are secured via a Biodiversity Enhancement S cheme is necessary in the interest of securi ng and encouraging biodiversity enhancements as well as the character and appearance of the area [7] . However, I have amended the timing of th is condition as a pre - commencement provision does not meet the t est of necessity in this instance. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/23/3319951 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 27. Air source heat pumps are proposed; however, these are a potential source of that a noise assessment was not submitted, in order to avoid adverse impacts upon the neighbouring occu impact assessment is necessary [9]. I have revised the wording of this condition to ensure the details are approved in writing by the local planning authority and to ensure it has a specific timeframe for implementation to ensure the condition is precise. 28. A condition ensuring the first - floor window on the s outh elevation of Plot 1 is obscured glazed is necessary in the interest of preserving the privacy of the occupiers of the neighbouring property [10] . I have redraft ed this condition as it previously required the window to be installed in accordance with a specific range of windows provided by a private company that could be subject to change or withdrawal. If this occurred, the condition as previously worded would be unenforceable. 29. The refuse collection points are proposed to be sited next to the highway and if the bins were permanently stored there this would detract from the character and appearance of the area. Whilst a bin store for Plot 3 has been identified on the plan s it is necessary for refuse enclosures to be provided for all the properties and for the design and siting of them to be approved in writing by the local planning authority in the interest of the character and appearance of the area as well as in the interest of p rovid ing suitable refuse arrangements for the future occupants [11] . Given that the council did not suggest this condition, in the interest of fairness, the parties were given the opportunity to comment on this condition and no objections were raised. 30. A condition requiring higher water efficiency measures is necessary in the interest of protecting scarce resources [12] . 31. A condition to provide a fibre optic connection is necessary to allow the future upgrade and maintenance of fibre optic broadband technology [13] . 32. A condition requir ing M4(2) accessible dwellings of the Building Regulations is necessary to provide suitable homes for the use and dignity of both occupiers and their visitors [14] . This would ensure a suitable degree of accessibility for future occupiers. 33. T he Framework states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so. Given the layout of the proposed dwellings sited relatively close to each other with the bungalow to the rear , if the y were to be extended, they could have an overbearing effect as well as result in a loss of privacy for the neighbouring occupiers. This could harm the living conditions of those neighbouring occupants. Additionally, extensions built either side of the proposed properties c ould erode the gaps between the dwellings which could create a cramped development . This could harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, this provide s clear justification to restrict permitted development rights to enlarge or extend the dwellings as well as make alterations to the roof [15] . Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/23/3319951 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 Conclusion 34. For the reasons given above I conclude that t he proposed development would accord with the development plan as a whole and the other material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed. G Sibley INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/23/3319951 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 Schedule of C onditions 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: Location Plan 03 - 02 - 001 ; Proposed Site Plan 03 - 02 - 100 P3; Proposed Site Plan Level 01 03 - 02 - 101 P3; Proposed Site Plan Roof Level 03 - 02 - 102 P3; Proposed Floor Plan Plot 0 2 03 - 03 - 31 P2; Proposed Floor Plan Plot 0 3 03 - 03 - 32 P1; Proposed Floor Plan Plot 0 1 03 - 03 - 30 P2; Proposed Elevation s Plot 0 1 03 - 03 - 30 P4; Proposed Elevations Plot 0 2 03 - 05 - 3 1 P2; Proposed Elevations Plot 0 3 03 - 05 - 32 P2 ; Estate Car Parking Sheet 1/2 SP03 A; Estate Car Parking Sheet 2/2 SP04 A ; and Tree Protection Plan DWG No. Arbtech TPP 01 a . 3) Details of the junction of the proposed vehicular access with the highway and the means of preventing surface water from the site entering the highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority prior to development above base course level taking place. The development shall not be occupied until the junction has been constructed in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter. 4) Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved the accesses shall be surfaced in a stable and durable manner with a bonded material across the entire width of the access for a distance of 5.0 metres measured back from the carriageway edge a nd retained thereafter. Surface water from the access es must not drain to the public highway. 5) Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved the vehicle parking spaces and turning areas shall be properly surface d and marked out and / or provided in accordance with the approved plans. The spaces shall thereafter be kept available for parking at all times. 6) Prior to development above base course level taking place a scheme of landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority , which shall include details of the following: a) New planting proposals giving location, species, number, density and planting size. b) Areas of grass turfing or seeding and other surface materials . c) Depth of topsoil to be provided where necessary and the measures to be taken to maintain the new planting for the required period. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscape works shall be carried out in the first planting season following the completion of the development . Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the tree planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others o f similar size and species. For the purpose of this condition a planting season shall mean the period from November to February inclus ive . 7) Prior to development above base course level taking place a Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme (to include details of protection and management of habitats and species incorporating opportunities for the enhancement Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/23/3319951 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 of existing and creation of new habitats on site) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme and retained thereafter . 8) Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved written details of all boundary treatments, screen walls and fences including a timetable for carrying out the works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter. 9) Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved a Noise Impact Assessment for any Air Source Heat Pumps shall be submitted to the l ocal p lanning a uthority and approved in writing . The Air Source Heat Pump Noise Impact Assessment shall detail the noise levels associated with the use of the air source heat pumps and include an analysis of whether any noise mitigation measures are required to control the noise (and if so full details of these mitigation measures). Prior to the occupation of the dwellings a ny required mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Air Source Heat Pump Noise Impact Assessment and retained thereafter. 10) Plot 1 as identified on drawing number 03 - 02 - 10 1 P3 of t he building s hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the window in the south facing side elevation of Plot 1 at first floor level ha s been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed 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 and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. 11) The dwellings shall not be occupied until details of the refuse enclosures for the approved dwellings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The dwellings shall not be occupied until the refuse enclosures have been built in accordance with the approved details. 12) The dwellings hereby ap proved shall not be occupied until the optional requirement for water efficiency of 110 litres per person per day as set out in regulations 36 and 37 of the Building Regulations 2010 as amended, shall have been complied with. 13) The new dwellings shall be served with an appropriate open access fibre optic infrastructure to enable high speed and reliable broadband connection unless evidence is submitted which demonstrates that providing the required infrastructure is not feasible or economically viable . 14) 49% of the total number of dwellings hereby approved across the site shall be built in accordance with the Building Regulations 2010, Volume 1, M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings) or such replacement document or policy which exists at the time of th e development commencing. The relevant dwelling (s) shall be built and retained in accordance with the se standards. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/23/3319951 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 15) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) (or any order revoking and re - enacting that Order with or without modification), there shall be no enlargement or extension to the dwellings hereby permitted, including any additions or alterations to the roof (Classes A C S chedule 2, Part 1 of the GPDO).⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Given that the council did not suggest this condition, in the interest of fairness, the parties were given the opportunity to comment on this condition and no objections were raised. 30. A condition requiring higher water efficiency measures is necessary in the interest of protecting scarce resources [12] . 31. A condition to provide a fibre optic connection is necessary to allow the future upgrade and maintenance of fibre optic broadband technology [13] . 32. A condition requir ing M4(2) accessible dwellings of the Building Regulations is necessary to provide suitable homes for the use and dignity of both occupiers and their visitors [14] . This would ensure a suitable degree of accessibility for future occupiers. 33. T he Framework states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so. Given the layout of the proposed dwellings sited relatively close to each other with the bungalow to the rear , if the y were to be extended, they could have an overbearing effect as well as result in a loss of privacy for the neighbouring occupiers. This could harm the living Conclusion 34. For the reasons…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3336757 (Cheshire East) — 2024-04-26
📍 Cheshire East LPA code: E06000049 PINS reference: 3336757 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2024 by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 th April 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/ R0660/D/24/3336757 7 Castleford Driv e , Prestbury, Macclesfield , Cheshire SK10 4BG 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 Jamie Lyon against the decision of Cheshire East Council . The application Ref 23/0 2 66M , dated 20 January 2023 , was refused by notice dated 22 November 2023 . The development proposed is the erection of a two storey side extension and two storey front remodel with single storey garage addi tion . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a two storey side extension and two storey front remodel with single storey garage addition at 7 Castleford Drive, Prestbury, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK10 4BG in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/0 2 66M , dated 20 January 2023 , subject to the following conditions : 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitte d shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan ; 22 - 57 - 00 - 001 R1; 22 - 57 - 00 - 002; 22 - 57 - 00 - 003 R1; 22 - 57 - 00 - 004 R1; 22 - 57 - 20 - 001 R7; 22 - 57 - 20 - 002 R7 ; 22 - 57 - 20 - 003 R 3 ; 22 - 57 - 20 - 004 R 3 and 22 - 57 - 20 - 006 R2 . 3) 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. Procedural Matter 2. The amendments of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) were published in December 2023 after the appeal application was determined. These amendments do not alter the basis upon which this appeal has been assessed. Main Issue 3. It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding are a , including the streetscene. Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/24/3336757 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Reasons 4. The appeal property is a 2 - storey detached dwelling sit ed on a wide plot which is situated within a primarily residential area comprising a mix of dwelling types, designs and sizes. S ome of the dwellings possess prominent entrance features, such as large porches, and others have been altered by the erection of a variety of different types of extensions. The property has a wide front entrance comprising double doors. 5. There is no unifying rhythm associated with the design of the dwellings fronting Castleford Drive other than they are set back from the road to the rear of landscaped front gardens also used for parking . T he external materials are mainly brick walls and concrete tiled roofs. There is a predominance of gable roofs albeit there are some limited examples of hipped roofs, including the side extension a t 11 Castleford Drive. Although making a modest contribution to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, the property is not of such high design quality that it needs to be retained in its current form to maintain a ny distinctive rhythm or pa ttern of development associated with the dwellings fronting Castleford Drive. 6. To the east of the property is an open area which contains a number of mature and verdant character to this particular part of the streetscene. There is part of the garden between the flank wall and the recently planted shared boundary with this open area. The proposed development includes the erection of a 2 - storey side extension on the garden between t boundary with the open area. Although sited closer to the open space, the proposed side elevation of the resulting property would still be set back from the boundary. 7. Together with the alterations to the front ele vation , including the front entrance door , the proposed extension would result in a change to the character and appearance of the property when viewed from the road . The resulting property would have a symmetrical appearance with 2 - storey gables at either end possessing hipped rather than gable roof forms. No other dwellings of a symmetrical appearance with a hipped roof form were observed during the site visit. 8. However, these design matt ers alone are not a reason for this appeal failing . T he appeal scheme would still result in a high quality design of dwelling which would be sympathetic to, rather than disrupt ing , the character and appearance of the surrounding dwellings, including those properties fronting Castleford Drive where there are variations in their form and design. 9. The resulting property would still be sited to the rear of the current front garden . Although smaller in width, a transition between the enlarged property and the open space would be maintained by the flank wall still being sit ed away from the shared boundary and the hipped roof sloping away from the boundary . Accordingly, the open and verdant character of the streetscene associated with the open space would be ma intained rather than be significantly harmed by the appeal scheme. 10. There would be an increase in the footprint and width of the property. However, the appeal scheme would not result in an overdevelopment of the plot thereby appearing a cramped form of dev elopment . T he resulting property Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/24/3336757 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 would sit comfortably within the existing spacious curtilage. As identified by of the curtilage would be similar to other dwellings within th e surrounding area. 11. Although the roof would not be set down below the current ridge, the size of the proposed extension would be subservient in scale to the host property . I n any event, even if the proposed extension was not subservient in scale , the ap peal scheme would result in a design and size of property that would not cause material harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene for the reasons given . The existing double door entrance to the property would be visually maintained by the pr oposed remodelling of the front elevation which would also include additional openings at first floor level . 12. Overall, the design of the resulting property would make a similar contribution to the streetscene as the existing property, subject to securing external materials match ing those of the host property in the event this appeal succeeds. This is to be preferred to the rendered walls originally indicated on the application form. 13. Accordingly, it is conclude d that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area, including the streetscene, and, as such, there would not be a conflict with Policies SD 2 and SE 1 of the Chesh ire East Local Plan Strategy and Policies GEN 1 and HOU 11 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document. In addition to general requirements for development to be of a high quality of design and be appropriate to the local context, these poli cies require extensions to dwellings to be in keeping with the scale, character and appearance of their surroundings and the local area and be subordinate to the existing dwelling. 14. The appeal scheme would also accord with the guidance contained in the Pres tbury Village Design Statement which refers to extensions not increasing the size of buildings to such an extent that they overdevelop the site and have an adverse impact on the open and semi - rural character of the Parish. Extensions must also respect the existing scale of the building. Conditions 15. The Council has suggested several conditions in the event this appeal succeeds which have been assessed against the test s in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. For reasons of clarity, a condition is necessary to secure the erection of the proposed extension in accordance with the approved drawings. To assist with the assimilation of the appeal scheme into the surrounding area a condition for the external materials to match those of the property is necessary. 16. For the reasons given, it is concluded that this appeal should be allowed. D J Barnes INSPECTOR
⚖️ 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.