Appealbase recorded 26 appeal decisions yesterday, with just one new residential unit permissioned — the selected decisions below focus on section 106B obligations, lawful commencement, enforcement notice drafting, Class Q restrictions, Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, rural workers dwellings, HMO Article 4 evidence and heritage impacts from street infrastructure.
Using our Appealbase ChatGPT/Claude connector?
Appealbase Pro gives you 10x more queries from just £10/month.
Buckinghamshire: Section 106B obligations partly reduced for GP surgery
A section 106B appeal concerning the Berryfields MDA GP surgery was allowed in part. The Inspector removed a £25,000 cycle route contribution and a £24,500 bus stop contribution where they no longer served a useful purpose, but retained the £63,800 Primary Public Transport Corridor contribution because the mitigation had already been delivered and the Council was entitled to recover committed expenditure. (3376196)
Gravesham: Trench works lawfully implemented two dwelling barn conversion
A lawful development certificate was granted confirming that a barn conversion permission for two dwellings had been implemented by digging a trench for foundations. The Inspector found that a non material amendment had expressly allowed those limited engineering works before discharge of the surface water condition, meaning the permission had been lawfully commenced. A full costs award was made against the Council for unreasonably refusing and defending the LDC appeal. (3361359)
Brent: Enforcement notice quashed for ambiguity and four year immunity
Two linked enforcement appeals produced important enforcement findings. One notice was treated as a nullity because its requirements and plans were ambiguous, leaving the appellant unable to know with reasonable certainty what compliance required. A second notice alleging conversion to two flats was quashed because the appellant’s evidence showed the use had begun before the relevant four year date. (3345487)
Torridge: Agricultural only condition prevented Class Q conversion
A Class Q appeal for one dwelling was dismissed after the Inspector raised the effect of a condition on the original barn permission requiring use for agricultural purposes only and for no other purpose. The Inspector found that Article 3(4) of the GPDO prevented permitted development rights being exercised contrary to that condition, so the proposal could not proceed under Class Q. (6010409)
Maidstone: Gypsy pitch refused despite unmet need and personal circumstances
A retrospective proposal for a one plot residential Gypsy site was dismissed because the access onto the A274 had poor visibility and created an unacceptable highway safety risk. The Inspector gave considerable weight to the best interests of the children, the lack of a five year supply of Gypsy and Traveller sites, protected characteristics and personal circumstances, but found that highway safety and risk to life were overriding. (6003947)
Mole Valley: Temporary rural workers dwelling failed essential need test
A temporary static caravan for an equestrian worker was dismissed. The Inspector found insufficient evidence that a continuous on-site presence was essential rather than convenient, noting limited evidence on the frequency of emergencies, breeding needs, security alternatives and the business case. The appeal also failed on accessibility and landscape grounds within the countryside and Area of Great Landscape Value. (6007601)
Birmingham: HMO lawful use certificate refused for insufficient Article 4 evidence
An appeal seeking a certificate for existing C4 HMO use was dismissed. The appellant argued the use began before Birmingham’s city wide Article 4 Direction came into force, but the Inspector found the evidence insufficiently precise, unambiguous and comprehensive to prove the use on the balance of probabilities. (3374627)
Hammersmith and Fulham: Digital street hub refused on conservation area harm
A multifunctional street hub with an integrated digital display, defibrillator and public communications functions was refused on non-determination appeal. The Inspector found no highway safety harm, but concluded that the structure would be an incongruous and prominent addition within the Shepherd’s Bush Conservation Area and would harm the setting of Granville Mansions as a non-designated heritage asset. (6009776)
Search the full text of all PINS appeal decisions for free at www.appealbase.com