Key decisions

Housing new build

A proposed 20-storey block of flats in west London has been allowed after it was held to be of outstanding design.

The secretary of state granted permission for the tower in an area not designated as suitable for tall buildings. The called-in application proposed 133 affordable homes on the cleared site of a long-term vacant tower block in a 1960s housing estate. The proposal comprised a taller building in an area not considered suitable for tall buildings by the development plan. It also lay within the setting of a listed church and conservation area. A previous permission granted by the council had been quashed by court order on the grounds that the officer's report failed to consider the acceptability of the proposed tower against the baseline of a cleared site. The council had subsequently resolved to grant permission for the revised application.

The secretary of state agreed with his inspector that the scheme conflicted with development plan policy in terms of the locational requirements for tall buildings and the low-level harmful impact on the significance of designated heritage assets. However, he noted that the proposal accorded with a number of other policies. This included the delivery of 133 affordable homes in the context of a significant shortfall, he judged. In his view, the proposed building would be of outstanding design that made efficient use of a previously-developed site, and the proposal would provide safe and mostly excellent living conditions for its occupiers, without any unacceptable impact on the living conditions of existing residents. A legal agreement secured a financial contribution to off-site play space, he found.

Overall, the secretary of state found the scheme in strong accordance with the development plan when read as a whole. The proposal would deliver 133 affordable homes in the context of a significant shortfall, he found. 

Inspector: Paul Griffiths; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-017

Comment: Several cases this month further emphasise the critical importance now attached to design considerations in determining planning appeals. This case, involving the redevelopment of a cleared site at the Clem Attlee Estate in west London, shows that this is also true for secretary of state call-in cases. One of the key issues was whether a 20-storey building was suitable, given that the site had not been identified as being suitable for tall buildings in the local plan. But the inspector highlighted that the high quality of the design would enhance the townscape, and the secretary of state agreed. He also agreed that the design was “exemplary”, and would be an addition to the skyline “of outstanding quality” that would raise the bar for development across London generally. Elsewhere, an inspector allowed a proposed conversion and redevelopment of an office block in north London after concluding that the materials used in the design would help offset any impact on area character (DCS Number: 200-011-037). By contrast, concerns over the design of a proposed hotel redevelopment in south-east Dorset, and its impact on the historic townscape, were enough for an inspector to issue a refusal (DCS Number: 200-011-034).

The “very significant harm” arising from a greenfield housing scheme in Wiltshire has been ruled to outweigh the scheme’s benefits.

The appellants proposed the 79-home scheme on a field lying just beyond the settlement boundary of a large village and close to Swindon. The inspector noted that the land constituted open countryside, where the proposal would be contrary to development plan spatial strategy. A previous appeal on the site had been dismissed in 2020 at a time when a neighbourhood plan had satisfied the terms of paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework and outweighed the benefits of new housing. The inspector acknowledged that this decision provided a material consideration but noted the neighbourhood plan was now more than two years old and paragraph 14 no longer applied. She noted that the council was still unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land, and therefore the tilted balance was engaged.

The inspector accepted that the site had no particular landscape value in itself. However, she identified a greater level of harm than the previous inspector, to the rural character and appearance of this part of the countryside edge. This, she found, resulted from urbanisation of the site and particularly the impact of a highly engineered new road access. The inspector accepted that the appeal scheme offered significant benefits in terms of new housing and ecological gains for the remaining area of a county wildlife site. However, she ruled there would be “very significant harm” to spatial strategy, which she found was “fundamental” to the development plan strategy, and also harm to rural character. In her view, these adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighed the development’s benefits.

Inspector: Frances Mahoney; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-039

Comment: This case is an example of an inspector deciding that out-of-date local plan policies on issues such as settlement strategies can continue to play an important role in the deciding planning appeals. In this case, the inspector found that the site, which lies in open countryside just outside Swindon, would be in conflict with the area's settlement strategy. But having accepted that the absence of a five-year housing land supply triggered the tilted balance and rendered key local plan policies as out-of-date, the inspector emphasised that this did not mean these policies should be ignored. The weight to be accorded to them, she said, “can still bite against the proposal”. In this case, she held that the policies in question indicated a particular importance to be attached to the countryside lying between identified strategically important centres. In these locations, she said the policies indicated there was a need to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. This approach was also reflected in paragraph 174 of the National Planning Policy Framework, she noted. These policies were therefore given significant weight, and resulted in the appeal being dismissed.

Latest cases

Commercial and industrial

Inspector finds no very special circumstances to justify a proposed storage and distribution centre in the Essex green belt.

Retailer Next had proposed to build the new regional storage and distribution centre on land adjacent to the M25 motorway. The 23.15-metre tall warehouse building would provide up to 52,621 square metres of storage. The appellants said the intention was that they would transfer the company’s existing storage capacity to the site, and that the new centre would also provide for future needs. It was estimated by the appellants that the facility would provide between 175 and 325 full-time equivalent jobs and contribute £15 million per annum to the local economy.

The inspector noted that the 9.7-hectare farmland site was proposed to be removed from the green belt in an emerging local plan, and allocated for a range of employment purposes including warehousing. Referring to the evidence base for this and lack of unresolved objections, the inspector opined that the allocation was likely to be found sound. He therefore found that conflict with green belt policy carried only moderate weight in his decision. However, although he found the building’s design to be of high quality, he decided that the enormous scale of such a tall and wide building sited so close to the M25 would look out of place. He found it would appear very evident to users of this stretch of the motorway, causing significant harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Evidence was presented to the inquiry that the appellant company was reviewing whether or not to close its existing warehouses in the region. In the light of this, the inspector held that the operational justification the appellants had made for needing a storage facility of the proposed size had been undermined and that it might not be fully utilised. Overall, he concluded that the economic benefits of the development would not clearly outweigh the moderate harm to the green belt and significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. He therefore found there were no very special circumstances justifying inappropriate development in the green belt.

Inspector: Grahame Gould; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-999

 Community facilities

Harm to heritage assets arising from proposed retirement flats in a West Midlands town centre have been held to outweigh the scheme’s benefits.

The scheme for 54 retirement apartments was proposed for a site within the setting of a grade I listed church. Much of the church’s significance derived from its setting within the historic core of the wider settlement, the inspector noted, and in particular as part of a complex of ecclesiastical sites and buildings. The appeal site also lay within a conservation area and close to a grade II listed former rectory, he noted.

The proposed development comprised a three-storey building topped with pitched roofs, and would be located to the south of the church where there were mature trees and dense areas of shrub. The inspector held that it would therefore lead to the loss of the last sizable undeveloped area. In his view, it would transform the character and appearance of the undeveloped area and the detailing and projecting wings would do little to break up the mass of the building. It would fragment the limited remains of former open areas within the ecclesiastical complex, he held, and by removing undeveloped space it would also cause material harm to the conservation area.

In assessing the planning balance, the inspector decided that although the harm to the setting of the church would be limited, this nonetheless carried great weight as a result of its grade I listing. The public benefits included the provision of sheltered market housing for older people as well as contributing to affordable housing, he noted, while there was also a shortfall in housing supply overall. The public benefits were therefore very significant, the inspector judged. However, the identified harm to designated heritage assets and conflict with the development plan outweighed these benefits, he concluded.

Inspector: Geoff Underwood; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-028

The benefits arising from proposed housing for older people in Worcestershire have been found to outweigh conflict with affordable homes policy. 

The appellants proposed a scheme involving 49 retirement apartments and seven retirement cottages on a town centre site. The council and the appellant disputed the anticipated build costs based on a three-storey development and used alternative estimates to justify their respective positions. The council claimed, using information from the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS), that a financial contribution of about £774,000 was supportable. The appellant’s final position was that a contribution of around £63,000 was viable.

The inspector accepted that a contribution was required and agreed with the council’s argument that the appellants’ proposed contribution would mean the proposal would not make adequate provision for affordable housing. However, he held that, while not meeting the council’s requirements, the scheme would nevertheless make a small contribution towards affordable housing provision. The unilateral undertaking also required the viability of the scheme to be reassessed if it was not completed within three years, he noted. In his view, the benefits of providing a specialist form of housing which was needed in the district should be given substantial weight and he allowed the appeal.

Inspector: Matthew Woodward; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-000

 Housing new build

The benefits of an edge-of-centre housing scheme in a Hertfordshire town have been held to outweigh moderate harm to area character.

The appellants proposed to demolish an office building on the site, just outside the town centre, and to replace it with seven buildings providing 576 apartments. Both main parties agreed that the appeal site was located within a mixed-use area of varied scale, materials and architecture which provided a transition between the old and new parts of the town. Various buildings were present in the local area, some containing up to 18 storeys.

The inspector noted that the 1980s office building possessed a ‘citadel-like' quality due to its height, architecture and position on a banked island separated from neighbouring uses by the road layout. In her view, it had a striking quality with extensive use of blue glass across two wings connected by a glazed atrium. However, there was consensus between the parties that it was not worthy of being a designated or non-designated heritage asset. There was also agreement that there was no demand to retain the existing building in employment use.

As proposed, the new residential blocks would range between six and 16 storeys in height, whereas the council’s preferred option was for a single tall structure on the site. However, the inspector noted that the concept of tall buildings on the appeal site was not objectionable per se. She held that the building forms would be uncomplicated, using a rectangular floor plan and consistent materials to emphasise their simplicity. Their height would vary across the site, she judged, separated by landscaped areas which would break up their massing. In her view, the building form and layout, height, proportions, active frontages, materials and architecture were acceptable.

Assessing views of the development, the inspector held that from some longer distances, the proposed development would appear “more clustered, homogenous and lacking in articulation” compared with the existing building. This, together with the loss of the existing building, would represent harmful impacts. However, she concluded that these impacts were only moderate in nature, with no impact on the legibility of the town centre. Overall, she held that the impacts were outweighed by the benefits of providing housing on the site and redeveloping a brownfield site.

Inspector: Joanna Gilbert; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-046

The proposed redevelopment of a vacant high-rise office block in north London has been judged not to harm area character.

The plans comprised the conversion and extension of the 1960s office buildings, with the ground floor being used as a dedicated workspace with flats above. An annex of the building would be redeveloped for further housing, with the scheme overall providing 260 homes, including 32 affordable homes. 

The inspector noted that the conversion of the main 12-storey building, which had been described by local residents as an “eyesore”, involved the addition of side extensions. The inspector agreed that this widening would increase its bulk and dominance in the street scene and prominence in views. New blocks of dwellings on the site would be more extensive and taller than the annex they would replace, he noted. 

In his view, however, while the proposed scheme would have more mass and density than the existing buildings, this would only be appreciated in limited specific views. It would not harm the character and appearance of the area generally, or constitute an overdevelopment of the site, he judged. He also held that the impact would be partly offset by the design and materials of the proposed development, such as the use of brick and exposed balconies in the corners. 

Overall, the inspector concluded the scheme complied with local and national policies seeking well-designed places. He also noted that it would deliver a number of benefits, especially the redevelopment of a prominent brownfield site, and a boost to housing supply. 

Inspector: Mike Worden; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-037

A proposed 13-storey student tower block in Manchester has been held to be harmful to area character and in an unsuitable location.

The appeal site comprised former offices situated just outside a district centre, on the opposite side of a road to a campus of student accommodation. The site was located in the south of the city, in an area of terraced housing with a large student population. Development plan policy supported high-density housing only where located within district centres, with family, elderly and affordable housing being the priority outside, the inspector noted. He ruled that even as a sui generis use, the purpose-built student accommodation performed a housing function and therefore conflicted with this policy. He also found the proposal failed to comply with a criterion of policy guiding high-density purpose-built student housing schemes to locations compatible with existing development.

Assessing the scheme's townscape impact, the inspector judged the tower would be an outlier relative to the taller buildings on the opposite side of the road as it would be well set away from them. It would also be located where it would contrast starkly with neighbouring terraced housing, he found, to the detriment of area character. The inspector concluded that the proposal would not be in a suitable location and would have an unacceptable effect on the area's character and appearance. In his view, the resultant conflict with the development plan would not be outweighed by the appellant’s evidence of a need for purpose-built student housing or the benefit of an efficient use of land.

Inspector: Darren Hendley; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-036

The benefits of a 125-home scheme in Somerset have been held to outweigh limited harm to a sensitive green space.

An inspector granted permission for the scheme, which included 38 affordable homes and six self-build plots, for a site on farmland within the built form of a village. The land was excluded from the settlement boundary and the area nearest an adjacent listed church had been designated as a local green space. The inspector noted that the fields which formed part of the land retained a rural character and tranquillity, and had been subject of a number of unsuccessful applications and appeals, most recently in 2018.

The inspector accepted that the proposed development would be a significant incursion into the undeveloped fields and into the distinctive element of the rural character and setting of the settlement. However, she also held that the degree of harm would be moderated by the containment of the site. She also judged that any harm to the setting of the local green space would be limited to a modest reduction in openness and tranquillity for users of a public right of way. In comparison to the 2018 scheme covering a larger area, there would be significantly less harm, she held.

The inspector found there was only a 3.5-year housing land supply and that the council’s current spatial strategy was not providing for the level of housing growth required to meet needs. She therefore gave reduced weight to conflict with housing policies. She also noted the appellant's offer to transfer the freehold of the local green space to the parish council as a benefit of the scheme. Despite giving full weight to policies protecting the local environment, she concluded that the adverse effects of granting planning permission would not outweigh the benefits of housing. 

Inspector: Andrea Mageean; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-993

The benefits of 72 new homes on a greenfield site in Dorset have been held to outweigh landscape and heritage impacts.

The proposal for the new homes on fields at the edge of a large village were allowed, after an inspector applied the tilted balance to the decision. He accepted that the proposal's location conflicted with the local plan spatial strategy and the scheme would harm visual amenity and landscape character. 

However, as the council was unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and housing completions were lagging, the inspector ruled that policies strictly controlling development in the countryside were out of date. He noted the public benefit of a boost to housing to meet a pressing need and in particular the provision of 28 affordable homes, in a settlement with a reasonable range of day-to-day facilities. In his view, these benefits outweighed the loss of rural landscape character and harm to the setting for a listed church.

Inspector: Paul Jackson; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-015

The benefits of new homes have been held to justify a housing scheme outside the boundary of a Worcestershire village.

The inspector held that the benefits of the proposed 45 houses, including 12 self- and custom-build homes, would outweigh conflict with the development plan. The four-hectare site was outside of, but adjoining, the settlement boundary, where new housing was restricted by development plan policy. However, in the inspector’s view, the site was well related to the existing settlement and development would be viewed in the context of the existing built edge without harm to the landscape.

The appeal site also lay within a designated strategic gap between the village and a nearby town. However, the inspector noted that the overall size of the gap was extensive. In this context, she ruled that development would not harm the gap function or set a precedent for its widespread erosion.

On the issue of housing land supply, the council and appellant disputed the correct position and how it should be calculated in a district with several joint plans. However, the inspector held that, irrespective of whether or not a five-year housing land supply existed, the benefit from the proposed housing – including addressing an under-delivery of self- and custom-build homes in the area – outweighed the scheme’s limited policy conflict. 

Inspector: Rebecca Norman; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-022

A proposal to replace farmyard buildings in Surrey with 20 homes has been held to benefit green belt openness.

The appellant claimed that because part of the site was previously developed land, the proposal would not amount to inappropriate development in the green belt under paragraph 149 (g) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). However, the inspector held that the lawfulness of business and storage use of five buildings on the site had not been properly established. Therefore, because part of the appeal site was occupied by buildings and structures last used for agricultural purposes, he held it was excluded from the definition of previously developed land. The exception in the NPPF from the definition of inappropriate development did not therefore apply, he ruled.

Assessing the impact of the development, the inspector found that the proposals would approximately halve the footprint and volume of buildings on the site. He found that the scheme would not extend beyond the relatively tight-knit existing spread of development, and would remove areas of hardstanding. Overall, his assessment found it would result in an overall visual and spatial improvement in green belt openness. 

The inspector also found no conflict with the purpose of the green belt to safeguard countryside from encroachment. Overall, he found that the inappropriateness of the development was outweighed by the benefit to green belt openness, amounting to very special circumstances justifying the development. He gave weight to the benefit of market and affordable housing in a location where it would support the vitality of a rural community. He also noted marketing evidence indicating the farm buildings were unlikely to be used again for agriculture and green belt policy which supported their residential re-use.

Inspector: Daniel Hartley; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-044

The striking design of a proposed new house in the Devon countryside has been held to be outweighed by a poor relationship with its setting.

An inspector acknowledged that the proposal for the house was of striking and innovative design. But she held that its poor relationship with the wider setting meant it did not benefit from support in paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 

The site comprised a field and the remains of a derelict cottage on the edge of a hamlet. The inspector held that as the site lay close to a small ribbon of low-density residential development, it was not isolated but nonetheless occupied and an unsustainable location due to poor access to services and impact on rural character. She noted that in such cases, paragraph 134 of the NPPF provides the opportunity for significant weight to be given to outstanding or innovative designs but only if they fit in with the form and layout of their surroundings. Similarly, under paragraph 80 of the framework, design only qualifies as of exceptional quality where it is sensitive to the character of the surrounding local area, she held.

In the inspector’s assessment, the building would be a striking piece of architecture, employing traditional local cob and thatch combined with straw bale construction in a contemporary interpretation of a Devon cottage which also achieved zero-carbon status. However, when the wider context was considered, she found the bulky scale of the building within its plot to be out of keeping in a spacious rural context, and unduly prominent in views from neighbouring cottages. Having found that the proposal would not be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area, and would have an unacceptable relationship with adjoining buildings, the inspector concluded that the proposal would not meet the full requirements of either paragraph 80 or paragraph 134 of the NPPF.

Inspector: Anne Jordan; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-010-988

Mixed development 

The public benefits of a major mixed-use scheme in Liverpool’s historic dockland have been held to justify some heritage harm.

An inspector held that the “very significant benefits” of the development were pivotal to the planned regeneration of the city’s historic dockland. The waterfront development proposed 330 new homes in three blocks of up to nine storeys, with ground floor commercial uses. The scheme also involved the partial infilling of a dock, a floating timber jetty and dockside walkway on a parcel of vacant brownfield land. An outline planning permission covering the wider 60-hectare regeneration area had already established the principle of the development proposed.

The main issue at the appeal was the impact on the area's character and the settings of a listed warehouse and a docks conservation area. The inspector held that the proposed design was in keeping with the form and mass of the remaining industrial heritage nearby. In his view, however, the prominence of the warehouse as a landmark building would be much reduced in views, and he held that this harmed the conservation area as well as the setting of the listed building. The inspector judged that harm to the dock itself as a non-designated heritage asset from partial infilling and loss of historic water was limited by other infilling which had already taken place nearby.

The inspector accepted there would be conflict with policy seeking family housing in the city centre, as 59 per cent of the proposed homes would be one-bedroom apartments. But in light of viability evidence demonstrating the housing mix was a direct consequence of the abnormal development costs and evidence of the council’s good progress towards meeting its housing requirements, the inspector gave this conflict reduced weight. 

Overall, the inspector noted that very significant public benefits would result from the scheme. These included the provision of a development platform which would act as a catalyst for other planned developments, he noted, together with the achievement of a new public square. In his view, these benefits outweighed the identified harm and policy conflict.

Inspector: Roger Catchpole; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-033

A proposed redevelopment of a former power station in Devon has been judged to be acceptable in transport, viability and landscape terms.

The proposal for the 38.5-hectare site – formerly occupied by the operational area of a coal-fired power station – featured up to 250 dwellings, up to 3,000 square metres of employment space and retailing space.

The council refused permission for a range of reasons including the adverse impact of the proposal on the highway network and an inappropriate mix and tenure of housing to meet local needs. It also cited the impact of the scheme on the character of the area, including the setting of the North Devon Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and a failure to deliver adequate local infrastructure.

The inspector noted that the council’s local plan allocated the site for mixed-use development for housing and employment uses together with community facilities.

Regarding highway impact, the inspector noted that the council had not produced any evidence to contradict the appellant’s assessment of the impact on a road junction as not being severe. A statement of common ground with the highway authority agreed that the site occupied a sustainable location, he found. The evidence demonstrated there would be minimal change in traffic flow expected to arise from the proposed development and a relatively negligible change in the capacity at the roundabout, the inspector noted. As a result, the proposed development would not have a severe impact on the highway network and therefore not be contrary to the provisions of paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework, he concluded.

Assessing the housing provision in the scheme, the inspector found that the council had not produced evidence to undermine the appellant’s viability assessment, which found that the scheme could not support the provision of affordable housing. He also noted that the appellant had offered a financial contribution of £1.4 million towards the provision of affordable housing. 

On landscape impact, the inspector held that it was inevitable there would be some impact on landscape character. However, he noted there was no dispute that the proposed development would remove an area of degraded landscape that had existed for some years, characterised by discordant and dilapidated features, material stockpiles, plant silos and derelict buildings. In the inspector’s view, the current appearance of the site provided a significant adverse impact on the local landscape.

No locally valued features would be lost as a result of the proposal, the inspector found, and the proposed masterplan provided an appropriate response to the development of the site within the sensitivity of its landscape context. The impact on the setting of the AONB would, in the inspector's view, be largely the same as that envisaged in the development plan.

In allowing the appeal, the inspector made a partial award of costs in favour of the appellant, concluding the council had acted unreasonably in dismissing the appellant’s viability evidence and pursuing its concerns on highway impact.

Inspector: Stephen Normington; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-011

Concerns over townscape impact have scuppered a proposed mixed-use redevelopment of a seafront hotel in south-east Dorset.

The appellants proposed to redevelop the hotel with a mixed use scheme incorporating 228 flats and a new 118-bed hotel, in five buildings. The site had been identified by the council as a redevelopment opportunity. However, the inspector noted that a key requirement of supplementary guidance and site-specific policy for the site was that any redevelopment should provide a transition in scale from neighbouring quayside eight-storey tall buildings to lower scale Victorian housing to the rear and other side of the site. In the inspector’s view, the proposed six and seven-storey blocks and steeply sloping asymmetric hotel roof failed to achieve a successful transition. The development would also appear bulky and cramped in the townscape, he held, and result in harm to visual amenity and significance of the conservation area.

The inspector acknowledged the wider public benefits of the proposal, primarily the redevelopment of a brownfield town centre site and the provision of housing in the context of a five-year supply shortfall. However, he held that the considerable harm to a heritage asset prevailed and triggered paragraph 11(d)(i) of the National Planning Policy Framework in providing a clear reason for refusal. 

Inspector: David Wildsmith; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-034

The adverse heritage impacts of converting a grade I listed building in central London into a hotel have been held to outweigh the scheme’s benefits.

The appellants applied for planning permission and listed building consent to convert the building, which had been occupied by HM Revenue & Customs, but was now vacant. The plan featured hotel rooms, restaurants/bars, riverside terraces and a dedicated museum. In considering the scheme's merits, the inspector accepted it would bring forward many heritage benefits, but held it would have many harmful heritage impacts too. In balancing these, he concluded that the harms carried more weight than the benefits, particularly the impact on the plan form and the routing of some of the services for the hotel. In his view, these would in certain instances involve harmful interventions to the building's historic and architectural importance.

This inspector reached his conclusion despite his view that the proposal represented the ‘optimum viable use’ of the building. He acknowledged that, according to planning practice guidance, harmful development might sometimes be justified in the interests of realising the optimum viable use of an asset, notwithstanding the loss of significance caused, and provided the harm is minimised. However, he noted that it also advised that in a small number of cases a heritage asset may be capable of active use in theory but be so important and sensitive to change, that alterations to accommodate a viable use would lead to an unacceptable loss of significance. This was the conclusion he reached on the appeal.

Although the impact would be severe, it would still be less than substantial and the scheme would deliver public benefits including some heritage benefits, the inspector accepted. The proposal would also deliver improved pedestrian permeability across the site, and along the river. However, he gave substantial weight to the harm which would be caused and held that this outweighed the benefits.

Inspector: Paul Griffiths; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-010

A proposed mixed-use redevelopment of a church hall site in north London has been held to have unacceptable townscape impacts.

The appellants proposed a scheme incorporating a medical centre and 178 flats in buildings up to seven storeys. The council accepted that, given the need to optimise site capacity, it was not necessary to replicate the low density suburban housing characterising the area around the site. The inspector noted that the site was visually and physically separated from surrounding built form by a road, railway and allotments. He accepted that the seven-storey element conflicted with tall buildings policy and would be notable on the skyline in contrast to surrounding housing, although he held that this harm would be only limited. 

However, the inspector also identified significant harm due to a poor relationship with the adjacent allotments. The height and layout of the development would present a hard urban edge to the allotments and detract from their quiet verdant character, he held.

The benefit of housing and affordable housing was moderated by a healthy housing land supply and delivery record, the inspector held. Overall, he concluded that the harm to the character and appearance of the area identified, together with conflict with the development plan, was not outweighed by the housing and other benefits of the scheme.

Inspector: Guy Davies; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-016

A proposed mixed-use redevelopment in Surrey has been held not to harm the setting of Hampton Court Palace.

The proposal incorporated 97 homes, a hotel and retail units, a railway station interchange and car parking on land used as a construction compound and which had historically contained a public house. The site was located on the opposite bank of the Thames to Hampton Court Palace, a scheduled monument and grade I listed building, and its registered park and garden. Part of the site was also used as a car park for a railway station and a second appeal sought temporary permission for the provision of 110 car parking spaces while the main development was implemented.

There was little doubt, the inspector held, that the palace complex had layers of history which contributed to its significance. But there was no evidence of any functional link between the site and palace prior to the construction of the railway in the 19th century, he held. The most visible part of the proposal would be the riverside building but this would not be orientated towards the palace, the inspector noted. In his opinion, although some change to the setting of the palace and other heritage assets would occur, these would not be harmful, and the scheme complied with the development plan.

Inspector: David Prentis; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-029

Transport development

The benefits of a proposed dual carriageway in Norfolk have been held to outweigh a resulting increase in carbon emissions.

The transport secretary granted a development consent order for the new section of dual carriageway on the A47 after considering whether carbon emissions had been properly assessed. National Highways proposed the road to replace a single carriageway section which acted as a bottleneck and had a poor safety record. The scheme was part of a programme of six schemes for the A47 in its road investment strategy. The secretary of state held that the need for the new road had been established and complied with the local development plan, as well as the National Policy Statement for National Networks (NNNPS). It also had the support of local councils, he noted.

The secretary of state considered a recent High Court decision to quash a development consent order for A38 trunk road improvements and the subsequent ruling in R (Transport Action Network Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport and Highways England Co Ltd [2021] that carbon emissions from the high-level road investment strategy were legally de minimis in relation to their impact on climate change objectives. In the light of this, the secretary of state found it necessary to consider in detail the matter of cumulative carbon emissions and climate change effects for the purposes of the NNNPS and EIA Regulations. He was satisfied by the appellants' approach but given that the proposed development would inevitably increase carbon emissions, he attributed this negative weight in the planning balance.

In addition to carbon emissions, the secretary of state noted that other adverse impacts of the scheme included effects on bats, the loss of high-quality agricultural land and allotments, and noise impacts for some local residents.

Overall, however, he concluded that the strategic benefits and need for the road outweighed its adverse impacts and he granted a development consent order.

Examiner: Alex Hutton; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-010-994