As planners and developers start getting to grips with the new NPPF it seems that Inspectors are doing the same, with only 12 appeal decisions yesterday, yet still permissioning 250 new residential units — the selected decisions below include two sizeable housing developments, an inquiry addressing immunity and remedial planting, a hearing on the lawfulness of hardstanding, and several enforcement and heritage decisions with practical implications for decision making and appeal conduct. I anticipate some hastily rewritten notices over the coming days.
Using our Appealbase ChatGPT/Claude connector?
Appealbase Pro gives you 10x more queries from just £10/month.
Maldon: Edge of settlement housing allowed under new NPPF Policy S5
An inquiry allowed up to 110 dwellings at Southminster, including affordable housing. The Inspector found moderate to minor landscape and visual effects, lowermost less than substantial heritage harm to a listed farmhouse, and no unacceptable noise impact subject to a detailed acoustic condition. With Maldon unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, the scheme was found to comply with new NPPF Policy S5 for development outside settlements, while limited weight was given to out of date settlement boundary policies. (6005664)
Warwick: Safeguarded land appeal allowed with partial costs award
Outline permission was granted for up to 140 homes on safeguarded land south of Westwood Heath Road. The Inspector found no prejudice to comprehensive future development of the wider safeguarded area, noted the Council’s housing land supply shortfall, and gave substantial weight to housing delivery. A partial costs award was also made against the Council because its refusal reason was not suitably justified and was not defended at appeal. (6002759)
Bradford: Inquiry enforcement notice upheld after limited immunity findings
An enforcement inquiry concerning concrete pads, buildings, septic tanks, stockpiling and access tracks at Jacobs Wood Farm was dismissed overall, with the notice corrected and varied. The Inspector accepted immunity only for the siting of buildings and concrete pads in two areas, reduced the replacement tree requirement from 300 to 100 trees, and extended compliance periods. A partial costs award was made against the appellant for the late withdrawal of the ground (a) appeal. (3378147)
Slough: Lawful development certificate granted for hardstanding
A hearing succeeded for a certificate confirming the lawfulness of hardstanding ancillary to transport maintenance and office use. The Inspector gave significant weight to statutory declarations and photographic evidence showing substantial completion more than four years before the LDC application. Resurfacing works in 2022 did not amount, as a matter of fact and degree, to a new operational development. (3378510)
Gravesham: Mixed use enforcement upheld at former Norbond site
The Inspector upheld an enforcement notice against a mixed use comprising self-storage, scaffolding storage and distribution, and a builders yard. The decision is notable for its treatment of the whole site as a single mixed use planning unit, its correction of use class wording, and its conclusion that containers and associated equipment could be required to be removed as ancillary works to remedy the breach. A 10 year immunity period applied to the mixed use, and the appeal failed. (3352876)
Staffordshire Moorlands: Grey belt finding did not outweigh conservation harm
An outline appeal for a single bungalow at Bagnall was dismissed. Although the site was treated as grey belt and not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the Inspector found unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and to the setting and significance of Bagnall Conservation Area. The limited benefits of one dwelling did not outweigh the heritage harm. (6008539)
Cherwell: Ground (g) enforcement appeal rejected for scaffolding yard
An enforcement notice against a sui generis scaffolding yard on agricultural land was upheld, with corrections to the wording of the allegation and requirements. The Inspector found that the appeal was effectively seeking more time after ground (a) was barred by section 174(2A), and that the appellant had not justified longer compliance periods for ceasing the use, removing structures and restoring the land. (3365518)
Search the full text of all PINS appeal decisions for free at www.appealbase.com