Key decisions

Commercial and industrial

The acute need for offices has been held to outweigh the lack of housing in a proposed mixed-use scheme in Cambridge. 

The proposed office campus on the edge of the city centre was approved by an inspector, who concluded the omission of housing in the proposal would only cause a moderate degree of harm. The appeal site was located in a mixed-use opportunity area, and a landmark office building had already been completed as part of the area’s development. But the landowner no longer wished to implement the remainder of the approved scheme which incorporated 156 homes, and instead proposed 28,000 square metres of office/research and development floorspace in two large buildings of seven storeys and five storeys, with retail, restaurant and cafe units on the ground floors. Along with retention of a locally listed pub and asset of community value, the scheme would form a campus of office space, food and beverage units and public realm.

The inspector held that the omission of any housing was tempered by the council’s more than six-year supply of housing land. He also concluded the scheme would have a positive townscape impact despite the significant mass and scale of the proposed buildings. Although he identified some inevitable visual impact on the setting of an adjacent botanic garden, a registered park, as well as a listed building and conservation area, he held that wider public benefits outweighed this moderate harm, notably meeting an acute need for high-quality office floorspace in a constrained historic city. 

A further issue at the appeal concerned the viability of a retained and reconfigured popular community pub. The inspector concluded that continued use of the building as a public house was secured by condition. In his view, a further condition requiring the submission and approval of a business plan demonstrating viability failed the tests of reasonableness, enforceability and necessity. He concluded that the development’s substantial economic and significant social and environmental benefits outweighed the lack of housing and resulting conflict with the development plan.

Weighing in favour of the scheme was the delivery of 371 market and affordable homes, 693 student flats and development of previously developed land in an area of decline, the secretary of state agreed. He also noted that it would provide a secondary school, site remediation, jobs and other economic benefits.

Inspector: Jonathan Price; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-751

Comment: This case is a rare example of a developer pleading for less housing at appeal, and shows how land markets do not always favour residential development. In this case, the unique circumstances of the Cambridge area meant the developers wished to provide no housing in a mixed-use scheme on a site partly allocated for residential development. Instead, they proposed offices and research and development floorspace, supported by retail and food and drink uses on the ground floor. The inspector recognised the unique nature of Cambridge’s market dynamics, the high-tech cluster of activities near the city’s railway station, and the acute need for high-quality offices in the area. In allowing the appeal, he also recognised that the council had a “reasonably healthy” six-year housing land supply which, he said, tempered the harm caused by the lack of homes in the proposal.

Housing new build

A proposal for self-build homes outside a Suffolk village has been held to make inadequate provision for affordable housing.

An inspector refused outline permission for the proposed 27 self-build and custom homes on paddock land outside the village settlement boundary, despite accepting the need for the plots. In assessing whether the council had complied with its duty to grant permission for enough self-build plots to meet demand in their area, the inspector did not accept the appellant’s case that only permissions restricted by a section 106 agreement or condition could meet the legal definition of self-build or custom-build. 

However, the inspector was also not persuaded by the council’s position that all permissions granted an exemption from the Community Infrastructure Levy would go on to become self-build housing. Neither was the inspector persuaded that the shortfall in plots could be met by either allocations or windfall development.

In assessing the scheme’s compliance with policy, the inspector noted that the scheme made no provision for the affordable housing required by the development plan. The appellants argued that paragraph 65 of the National Planning Policy Framework exempts self and custom-build housing from any requirement to provide affordable housing. However, in the inspector’s view, this exemption applied only to affordable home ownership rather than affordable housing contributions overall. If it had been intended to apply a complete exemption from the requirement to provide affordable housing for self and custom-build housing, this exemption would have been listed in paragraph 64 of the framework, the inspector held.

Despite giving significant weight to the benefit of helping to meet an identified need for self-build and custom-build housing, the inspector concluded this did not outweigh conflict with the development plan, including on the lack of affordable housing provision.

Inspector: G Pannell; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-010-722

Comment: Two cases this month provide an indication that the 2015 Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act, with its duty on councils to provide planning permissions to meet demand in their area for self-build plots, is likely to result in more appeals coming forward for such schemes. In a case in Cambridgeshire (DCS number 400-034-632 below), an appeal was allowed where the LPA was found to be a long way behind in providing sufficient plots to meet demand in their area. In this case in Suffolk, the inspector also accepted there was a shortfall in the provision of self-build plots. However, in dismissing the appeal, she also held that such schemes should not be exempt from affordable housing provision where they fall above the thresholds for such provision set in national policy.

Latest cases

Community facilities

A council has been held to have acted unreasonably in pursuing an appeal against a proposed retirement village extension outside an Essex town.

An inspector allowed the appeal for an additional 232 homes on greenfield land as an extension to an already-consented scheme. He also made a full award of costs to the appellants after finding that the council had acted unreasonably in pursuing its defence of the refusal at appeal. In doing so, the inspector held, it had failed to correctly apply the tilted balance after acknowledging that it was triggered.

With the council’s agreed housing land supply standing at only 2.92 years, the inspector found a very significant failure to secure a five-year supply of housing land, which engaged the tilted balance in favour of the proposal. The council’s local plan review was years away, the inspector held, and there was no prospect of a plan-led solution to the problem. The council had therefore accepted that housing development on greenfield land outside of settlement boundaries would be required to address acute housing needs, he noted. 

In the inspector’s view, the minor harmful effect on rural character and appearance identified by the council was an inevitable consequence of developing greenfield land. Any effects on the living conditions of the occupiers of the nearest houses from loss of outlook would also be very limited, he held. These minor impacts fell far short of significantly and demonstrably outweighing the substantial benefits of specialist elderly and affordable housing, he concluded.

Inspector: Owen Woodwards; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-752

Lack of retailer demand has been found to justify the replacement of a proposed local store with a care home in a Dorset urban extension.

An inspector found that the need to provide a 420 square metre convenience store as part of a local centre within the extension was unjustified as there was no proven retailer support. The local centre, containing retail facilities to meet day-to-day needs, was proposed as part of a new neighbourhood extending to 75 hectares and including 350 homes, a sports village and allotments. However, the appellants argued that a 64-bedroom care home should replace the retail unit, arguing that extensive marketing had demonstrated a lack of retailer demand.

The council accepted that no national grocery retailer was likely to operate from the site, but argued that if the unit were built, this would generate interest from secondary and independent convenience goods retailers.

However, the inspector decided that the commercial attractiveness of the site to a convenience goods retailer was tempered by the presence of ten convenience goods outlets within a 1.6-kilometre radius. And the council accepted there were alternative facilities in the area to serve the proposed new population in the urban extension. Building a unit in the hope that a retailer could be found was risky, the inspector held, and could involve a waste of capital expenditure leading to the unit remaining vacant.

The inspector accepted that the proposed care home would have an impact on the character and appearance of the area, which would be greater than that of a single retail store. But the front elevation was broken down visually into different elements and the articulation would not adversely impact on other residential accommodation nearby, he held.

Inspector: Martin Allen; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-010-730

The design of a proposed retirement living development in a Northamptonshire market town has been held to harm local character.

The appellants proposed to redevelop a vacant care home with 31 retirement-living flats in an area of mainly two-storey development with a suburban character. The inspector found that the existing care home was a nondescript, institutional building. She observed that the site was located on the edge of a green space which separated it from listed school buildings including a grade II* chapel set in landscaped school grounds. In the inspector’s view, the appeal site was within the setting of both the listed buildings and of the town centre conservation area. 

In this context, the inspector judged the bulky and boxy appearance of the proposed three-storey flat-roofed building as lacking in any articulation. The proposal would be out of keeping with the domestic scale of its immediate surrounding, she held, and would be an obtrusive feature in the setting of the heritage assets.

The appellants argued there were other existing and permitted three-storey buildings in the vicinity. However, in the inspector’s opinion, these had pitched roofs and greater articulation in the designs which avoided the same bulk and mass of the appeal proposal. 

The appellants also referred to an expired permission granted by the council some 13 years earlier for a three-storey pitched roof building. They pointed out that the council had at the time concluded that the site was not in the setting of either the conservation area or listed buildings. But since that decision was made, the inspector observed, greater guidance on defining the setting of heritage assets had been provided. She also held that the emphasis on the importance of the design of the built environment in national and local policies provided a different policy background that had elevated the importance of design. She concluded that harm to heritage assets would not be outweighed by the benefit of specialist housing.

Inspector: Zoe Raygen; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-010-702 

Housing new build

A housing land supply shortfall has led to approval of up to 460 homes on a greenfield site in Gloucestershire.

The appellants submitted outline plans for the development just outside a market town. There was consensus between the parties that the location of the site was contrary to the development plan, but there was also agreement that the most important housing policies were out of date because the council could not demonstrate a five-year land supply. A review of an overarching joint core strategy being prepared with neighbouring authorities was at a very early stage and therefore carried no weight. The council argued that the borough’s own emerging local plan would soon restore a five-year supply. However, the inspector judged there was insufficient evidence regarding the deliverability of the housing allocations in this plan, and therefore gave it little weight. 

In debating the scale of the council’s acknowledged housing land supply shortfall, the parties disputed whether a past significant oversupply should be taken into account. The inspector decided that the council should be credited with its past oversupply, but held that this still left it being able to demonstrate only a 3.83-year supply, and that the tilted balance was therefore triggered.

In judging the overall planning balance, the inspector held that the proposal would cause limited harm in terms of landscape and visual impacts, loss of agricultural land or prejudice to the council’s aspiration for a garden town in the area. He noted the site’s sustainable location close to a town where the core strategy anticipated strategic allocations and a valuable contribution towards meeting housing needs. In his view, therefore, the benefits of development overwhelmingly outweighed any harm.

Inspector: Michael Boniface; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-708

A housing proposal for a windfall site in Lancashire has been held to have adequately provided for social infrastructure.

The inspector allowed the 44-home development for the site within the urban area, finding insufficient evidence to support the council’s argument that the proposal made inadequate provision for education or healthcare infrastructure. The inspector acknowledged that the education and healthcare infrastructure needs generated by the proposal had not been assessed in the preparation of a local plan. However, it was noted that a county council education contribution methodology provided a mechanism for assessing the potential impact of windfall housing developments.

The methodology assessed the capacity of primary schools within a two-mile radius of developments, and applying this approach, the education authority was content there was sufficient capacity for school places to serve the development and no need for an education contribution. However, the council argued that this distance was too far for primary school children to walk, and that applying this would therefore reduce parental choice and generate car travel. It argued that half a mile was a more reasonable measure for access to primary schools. 

But in the absence of further evidence to support this approach, the inspector found that the council had not justified departing from the education contribution methodology. The inspector noted that much of the council’s case was based on the everyday experiences of local residents, but that this was not substantiated by clear evidence. Finding a similar lack of substantiated evidence in relation to an alleged lack of health care facilities in the local area, the inspector allowed the appeal and awarded costs to the appellant and the county council.

Inspector: F Wilkinson; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-034-726

A substantial and growing unmet need for self-build plots has led to a nine-home scheme in Cambridgeshire being approved.

The appellants proposed the scheme on a site just outside a village boundary, and the inspector held that the proposal would be larger than the size normally envisaged for settlements of this size. He also found it would be to some extent car dependent, and therefore conflicted with development plan policy. 

However, he found that the council was a long way behind in providing for sufficient self-build and custom-build housing planning permissions to meet demand in its area. Such provision was required under the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, he noted.

Finding an existing shortfall of 146 plots since the local register began and the numbers of applicants joining the register increasing significantly every year, the inspector held that a rapid increase in new self-build permissions was needed. The council had introduced a policy requiring an element of self/custom-build plots on larger housing sites, he accepted, but had provided no information on the numbers which would be delivered by this approach. In the inspector’s view, therefore, the need to increase the supply of self-build opportunities was a weighty material consideration supporting the appeal. 

He found that the site was well related to the village and would cause no harm to the character and appearance of the area. Allowing the appeal, he observed that it was difficult to see how the serious shortfall in provision for self/custom building could be overcome without some relaxation of development plan policies.

Inspector: John Felgate; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-034-632

A housing proposal in Somerset has been held to have inadequately provided for affordable homes, after being judged to form part of a larger scheme.

An inspector dismissed the proposal for six homes on the edge of a village after deciding it formed the second phase of a housing development already permitted on adjacent land. The council had recently granted permission for seven houses on the adjoining land with no provision of affordable housing, due to the exemption for small schemes in national policy. The inspector therefore considered it necessary to decide whether the two developments formed part of a single larger development for the purposes of determining whether sufficient provision for affordable housing and other policy requirements had been made.

The inspector referred to case law in New Dawn Homes Ltd v SSCLG and Tewkesbury BC [2016] and R(Westminster City Council v FSS and Brandlord Limited [2003] as providing some useful criteria for determining whether a proposal constitutes a phased development of a larger scheme. But he held that it was a matter for his judgment based on the evidence of the case. 

In this case, the inspector noted that the two sites were immediately adjacent to each other, the land was in the same ownership and the schemes shared an access point and internal access road. In his view, it was clear the appeal proposal and the permitted scheme were different phases of the same larger development. It was therefore reasonable for affordable housing, travel plans, public open space and financial contributions towards infrastructure to be calculated on the basis of 13 houses, he held. The submitted unilateral undertaking did not make sufficient provision for these matters, he judged. Although he found no harm in relation to protected species or protected habitats of a special area of conservation, he therefore dismissed the appeal.

Inspector: Andrew Spencer-Peet; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-034-671

A proposed bungalow on the seafront at an East Sussex village has been judged as compliant with flood risk policy.

The appellant proposed the new home on a seafront car park, which lay within Flood Zone 3, defined as an area with a high probability of flooding. To satisfy the sequential test in national flood risk policy, the appellant firstly had to demonstrate it was not possible for the development to be located in alternative areas with a lower risk of flooding. In carrying out this test, the council argued that the most appropriate catchment area to consider was either the whole of the district or the wider housing market area extending into neighbouring districts. 

However, the inspector held that it was more appropriate to use the council’s core strategy settlement hierarchy, in which the village was defined as a local service centre where local amenities, including housing, should be provided. In his view, while there could be potential development sites at lower risk of flooding in the wider area outside of the village, they were not a reasonable alternative to meeting the local housing needs of the community. He therefore concluded that alternative sites outside the village did not need to be considered, and that the test was passed.

The inspector then assessed whether the proposal met the exception test in the National Planning Policy Framework, which firstly required an assessment of whether the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community. In his view, this test was satisfied by provision of an additional dwelling in the context of a housing supply shortfall and an improvement in the appearance of the site. Finally, the inspector considered whether the development would meet the requirement that it should be safe for its lifetime and not increase flood risk elsewhere. This requirement was satisfied, he held, by a design which incorporated a raised height for the ground floor and located the bedrooms on the first floor. 

Further council concern that the design did not account for climate change was noted by the inspector. However,  in the absence of an objection from the Environment Agency, he concluded that the proposed development satisfied the sequential and exception tests. 

Inspector: Guy Davies; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-034-682

Housing conversion

Inadequate on-site parking has ruled out the proposed conversion of a vacant pub in Worcester into six flats.

The scheme proposed three car parking spaces, the inspector noted, compared with the eight spaces for such schemes recommended in council design guidance, a shortfall which she described as significant. The appellant pointed out that the site was in a location where there were opportunities for walking, cycling or catching a bus to a range of services without the need for travel by private car. He also highlighted that the former use of the site as a pub would have generated considerable parking demand.

The inspector did not agree that proximity to services and facilities and the availability of alternatives to private vehicle use, of itself, meant occupiers would not use private cars, noting the prevalence of cars parked nearby. In the absence of any mechanism preventing future occupants from making use of private vehicles, she concluded it was inevitable they would seek to park close by. Parking restrictions were in place on the main road outside the site, and there was evidence of existing parking stress in surrounding narrow residential streets, she found. In her view, an increase in parking demand could lead to additional congestion as drivers looked for parking space, or parked illegally, to the detriment of highway safety. 

While acknowledging there would be parking demand associated with a pub, the inspector held that the evidence did not indicate this use would resume. She therefore judged it was not a realistic fallback. Overall, the inspector decided the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, contrary to local and national policies and parking guidance in the design guide.

Inspector: Rachel Hall; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-034-868

 Householder development

The blue paint used on a facade of a listed building in a Somerset town has been judged to harm the special interest of the building.

An inspector refused listed building consent for the retention of the paint used on the front elevation of the Conservative Club building, which was a grade II listed structure lying in a conservation area. The building, which had been listed in 1975, had been built as a dwelling within a terrace around the end of the 18th century. The inspector judged that the building’s historic façade was a primary contribution to the special interest of the building. As it occupied a prominent position, the inspector held that the facade also contributed to the setting of other historic buildings within the terrace and to the character of the wider conservation area.

The inspector described the blue paint applied as a vivid modern colour, appearing stark against the paler window and door surrounds, and out of keeping with the more muted paint tones used on other buildings in the conservation area. The appellant argued that the paint reinstated the colour of the building when it was listed in 1975. However, after referring to photographic evidence, the inspector judged that a softer and more traditional tone of blue had been used and did not justify the current intense blue. The new colour harmed both the special interest of the building and the character and appearance of the conservation area, he concluded.

Inspector: Andrew Tucker; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-034-854

Leisure and entertainment

Very special circumstances have been held to justify a proposed covered padel tennis court on green belt land in Hertfordshire.

An inspector found that the community benefit of the facility at an existing tennis centre would outweigh limited harm to green belt openness. The inspector noted that paragraph 149 of the National Planning Policy Framework identifies that construction of new buildings can be considered as appropriate development in the green belt where they are appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and they preserve green belt openness. However, a barrelled-roof open-sided structure would cover the courts to enable use in all weathers, the inspector noted. This would reduce openness, albeit to a limited extent given the presence of the buildings and structures of the existing tennis centre, he held.  

The inspector noted that the proposal was supported by the Lawn Tennis Association, as part of a drive to develop padel as a nationwide sport. Additional sport and recreation facilities were also needed to serve housing growth in the area, he held, and to provide an opportunity for school collaboration. In the inspector’s view, the contribution of the proposal towards community health and well-being attracted substantial weight and clearly outweighed the harm that would be caused to the green belt. 

Inspector: Martin Chandler; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-034-875

 Mixed development

A proposed housing scheme on an allocated greenfield site in Essex has been held not to have severe transport impacts.

The appellants proposed 662 homes and a community facility on land allocated for 500 houses on the edge of a town. The original allocation policy had noted that a development of more than 500 homes would be acceptable on the site in the event of a housing land supply shortfall, the inspector noted, which was the case for this appeal. 

The inspector noted that despite accepting the principle of the allocation in an emerging local plan, the council had refused the proposal, against officer recommendations, on the basis of a severe impact on the local highway network.

The highways authority had raised no objection to the scheme after careful analysis of the appellants’ transport assessment and proposed mitigation, the inspector noted. In assessing the scheme’s compliance with national policy, the inspector clarified that the National Planning Policy Framework sets two specific tests: whether a development would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and whether the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. 

The inspector accepted that the proposed development would noticeably add further traffic to an already busy road network. However, referring to the appellant’s technical evidence, he judged that once all mitigation measures had been carried out, there would be no unacceptable impact on highway safety or severe residual cumulative impact on the road network. This was also agreed at the inquiry by the council’s own independent highway expert, the inspector noted. 

As the council had put forward no technical evidence of its own, relying on local knowledge and a perceived impact to support its contention of a severe highway impact, the inspector concluded the scheme complied with the development plan. In the tilted balance triggered by the five-year housing land supply shortfall, he ruled that the benefits of development clearly outweighed increased traffic levels.  

Inspector: David Wildsmith; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-723

Unmet housing need has trumped a settlement boundary policy in justifying a 475-home scheme in West Sussex.

The appellants proposed the new homes alongside a local centre and additional car parking for an adjacent railway station on a 20-hectare site just outside the existing built-up area. The appellants claimed the settlement boundary was out of date because it restricted the supply of housing land. However, the inspector judged that, although the policy was adopted before the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework, its aim of protecting the countryside was in general accordance with national policy.

But there was consensus between the parties that there was an exceptionally high unmet need for open market and affordable housing in the area, and the council accepted it could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. In the inspector’s view, the proposal would make a meaningful contribution to addressing this unmet need, a factor to which he accorded very significant weight “at the uppermost end of the spectrum”. The scheme would also deliver 40 per cent affordable units, in excess of the council’s minimum 30 per cent requirement, he noted.

An emerging local plan designated the site as a local green gap aimed at maintaining the separate identities of settlements. But given the emerging nature of the plan and outstanding objections to the draft policy, the inspector gave it only little weight. Although the proposal would reduce the gap between two settlements, the bulk of development would occur on the southern end of the site where the two settlements had already partially merged, he judged.

Assessing impacts on the road network, the inspector accepted that the development would increase congestion and travel times, but held that the residual cumulative effects would not be severe.

Inspector: Rory Cridland; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-700

The regeneration benefits of a proposed brownfield redevelopment in Reading have been held to outweigh the lack of a comprehensive approach for the wider site.

An inspector allowed the residential-led mixed use scheme on part of an allocated site, formerly the location of a local power station, near the town centre. She held that the scheme would deliver key policy objectives for the wider regeneration area, including provision of a pedestrian and cycle link between the railway station and the River Thames, as well as riverside improvements. 

In the inspector’s view, the proposal for 209 homes and restaurant/cafe floorspace in buildings ranging up to 11 storeys would be acceptable in principle and appropriate in a preferred tall building location. However, she also held that the proposals would not secure comprehensive development of the whole allocation, in conflict with the development plan, and would entail demolition of a locally listed building.  

The inspector heard evidence that the remainder of the allocation was unlikely to come forward for development, with the electricity company owner stating its intention to continue an operational use on the site. Given the high cost of relocating equipment, as well as viability implications for the appeal site of reducing the quantum of development proposed in order to accommodate a comprehensive scheme, she found that the scheme’s benefits clearly outweighed any policy harm. 

Inspector: Andrea Mageean; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-744

 Retail development

A proposed foodstore in a south London borough has been held not to result in unacceptable highway impacts.

Retailer Lidl proposed the foodstore on the site of a former pub in a local centre. A similar proposal for a foodstore on the site had been rejected at appeal by an inspector in 2013 due to highway safety issues. This earlier appeal had found no harm caused to the character and appearance of the area, the living conditions of nearby residents or the loss of an asset of community value. The single main issue in the current appeal therefore concerned the effect of the proposed 749 square metre foodstore, with a 33-space car park, on pedestrian and highway safety. 

The council argued that intensification of use would harm highway safety, despite the lack of objection to the scheme from its highways officer. The inspector acknowledged that the evidence showed that, at certain times, the number of proposed parking spaces would not cater for the expected demand. This could result in queuing on the highway and parking off-site, he found, as well an inevitable increase in traffic levels. However, in his view, the council had not demonstrated that these effects would lead to an unacceptable impact on highway safety or severe residual cumulative impacts on the road network. 

The inspector accepted the appellant’s argument that peak hours traffic would increase only negligibly as few people would choose to undertake a single-purpose food trip at peak time. He also concluded that the parking situation would be subject to similar self-regulation whereby customers choose to shop at a time when they are more likely to be able to find a space in the shop car park. Subject to conditions securing details of a servicing and delivery plan and a travel plan, and taking into account pavement and crossing improvements for pedestrians, the inspector allowed the appeal.

Inspector: Adam Nilsson; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-034-981

A fallback scheme has been held to justify the proposed subdivision of a retail unit in Greater Manchester to create a new foodstore.

The appellants had proposed subdividing the out-of-town Homebase store to provide a smaller unit for the same firm, as well as a new Lidl foodstore. The council had subsequently granted permission for the same development at the appeal site with a different vehicular exit that resolved highways objections. After the inspector accepted a replacement drawing showing the same access arrangement, the council no longer wished to contest the appeal but third parties maintained their objections.

The main issue, according to the inspector, was whether the proposal complied with the sequential test given a sequentially preferable edge-of-centre site allocated in the development plan. In assessing this, the inspector considered the suitability of the site in the context of the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework for applicants and local planning authorities to demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale. She found no functional relationship preventing the Lidl store from being disaggregated as a standalone unit. As Lidl had already committed to operating a smaller metropolitan format store from the allocated site, showing flexibility in scale and format, the inspector concluded that the appeal proposal failed the sequential test. However, giving significant weight to the fall back of the extant planning permission, as well as the benefits of improving customer choice and maximising the use of brownfield land, she allowed the appeal.

Inspector: Christa Masters; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-704

Transport development

Very special circumstances have been held to justify a proposed motorway service area on green belt land in the West Midlands.

An inspector allowed an appeal for the service area adjacent to a new junction being constructed next to the M42 motorway. However, a second proposal for a smaller service area nearby was refused on the grounds of harm to the openness of the green belt. 

The larger proposal would be accessed from the new junction 5a, which had already been permitted and was under construction. The inspector accepted that the scheme, which would also include a hotel, would harm the green belt. However, he judged it would be located close to the motorway corridor and appear spatially and perceptually separate from nearby settlements. 

The smaller scheme was proposed at a site adjacent to the existing junction 4 of the motorway. The inspector noted that the proposal would be located on land which sloped steeply upwards away from the motorway. In his view, there was a marked contrast between the countryside scene at this location and a business park further away. The proposal would intrude into the countryside, he held, and planned earth bunds, while providing some screening, would also appear alien in scale and nature. The development would fail to maintain the separate identity of settlements and would encroach into the countryside, the inspector concluded.

Both schemes would give rise to limited landscape and visual effects and there was no highway objection to either proposal, the inspector accepted. But the preferred site would provide better coverage in terms of gaps in provision and provide a marginally greater level of public safety and welfare benefits, he concluded.

The inspector accepted there was some doubt that the larger scheme could proceed given it was dependent upon National Highways providing a smart motorway along the section of the M42 in which it would be located. However, he held that it was the only one acceptable in green belt terms. 

Inspector: Michael Boniface; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-731

No special circumstances have been found to justify an electric vehicle charging hub in the Buckinghamshire green belt.

The proposal involved extending the service station onto part of an adjacent field, to provide hardstanding for an electric charging hub for six vehicles, enclosed by a 1.8-metre high fence. The inspector noted that paragraph 150 of the National Planning Policy Framework makes an exception to inappropriate development in the green belt for local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a green belt location, subject to preserving openness.

No evidence had been provided to justify the green belt location, in the form of current deficiencies in electric vehicle (EV) charging facilities within a relevant catchment or network, nor an explanation of why the hub could not be provided within the existing confines of the service station, the inspector held. In his judgment, the hub, by jutting out behind the service station, would spread built form, reducing the opening of the green belt and conflicting with its purpose in restricting sprawl and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. 

The inspector acknowledged the government’s promotion of EVs and accepted that provision of charging points at service stations was a means of delivering this objective. However, he concluded that this did not outweigh green belt policy and in the absence of very special circumstances to justify harm to the green belt, he dismissed the appeal.

Inspector: Robin Buchanan; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-034-926