Key decisions

Commercial and industrial

Environmental harm has been held to outweigh the economic benefits of a proposed science park on farmland outside Swindon. 

The appellants proposed a multi-phase scheme on a flat agricultural site. The proposal comprised 33,507 square metres of class B1(c) light industrial floorspace in phase one, followed by an additional 16,400 square metres of class B1(c) floorspace and up to 32,281 square metres of class B1(b) floorspace. The appellants accepted that the site’s location contravened the local plan strategy, which sought to focus employment development within the urban area. However, they argued that this was outweighed by the very significant number of jobs created by the scheme, including 2,700 on the site and 2,565 in the wider economy.

The inspector judged that the site’s importance within the setting of the nearby North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and its role in preventing coalescence between settlements meant it should be considered a valued landscape. In his assessment, the science park would harm both these important landscape functions and also undermine the farmland setting of nearby village conservation areas and listed buildings. 

In applying the heritage balance required by the National Planning Policy Framework, the inspector concluded that the extent of harm caused by the scheme would not be outweighed even by its undeniably considerable benefits. In the overall planning balance, he held that its landscape impact, including on the setting of the AONB, and harm to heritage assets were too great to be outweighed by its economic and other benefits.

Inspector: Paul Griffiths; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-615

Comment: This case is an example of situations in which identified harm to environmental assets has to be weighed against the proposal’s public benefits, which in this case focused on the significant economic benefits of the proposed science park. In carrying out the balancing exercise required by paragraph 203 of the NPPF, the inspector recognised that the scheme’s benefits would justify harm to the setting of non-designated heritage assets. However, the presence of designated heritage assets, together with his judgement that the scheme would harm the setting of the AONB, altered the planning balance. The extent of harm caused to the setting of conservation areas and listed buildings, alongside the harm to the setting of the AONB, led him to conclude that it would not be outweighed by the scheme’s benefits.

Community facilities

No very special circumstances have been found to justify a proposed crematorium in the South Yorkshire green belt.

The appeal scheme was one of three planning applications submitted by different operators for crematoria in the area. The council had granted permission for one of these schemes on a site outside the green belt and refused permission for the other two. An independent report commissioned by the council concluded that only one of the three crematoria would be required to meet current and future requirements.

After referring to an updated needs assessment, the inspector identified a clear quantitative need for one or even two more crematoria, representing a shortfall which the appeal scheme could help to meet. In her view, however, there was an insufficient catchment population within a 30-minute cortège drive-time for the scheme to significantly reduce pressure on overtrading crematoria in the wider area. While accepting that the proposal would be beneficial in providing an essential community facility, she held that the community would be better served by a crematorium in a different location. 

Furthermore, she found it uncertain whether there might be an alternative site better suited to meeting these needs, possibly on the urban fringe or outside the green belt. Attaching only moderate weight to the proposal’s community benefits, she held that very special circumstances overriding harm to the green belt had not been demonstrated. The proposal would result in a spatial and visual loss of openness and encroach on the countryside, she concluded.

Inspector: Caroline Mulloy;
DCS Number: 200-010-624

Comment: Unmet demand and a substantial catchment population within a reasonable distance are key elements in making a special need case for proposed crematoria in green belt locations. In another recent decision (DCS Number 200-010-538), plans for a Hindu crematorium and dining hall were allowed next to a newly built temple in an area of Buckinghamshire with almost 200,000 Hindus living within a 45-minute cortège speed drive-time. Given an overriding public interest case, a lack of suitable alternative sites and the benefits of co-locating the crematorium with the temple, the inspector decided that very special circumstances outweighed harm to the green belt from inappropriate development and loss of spatial openness.

Latest cases

Community facilities

Very special circumstances have been found to justify approval of a retirement village in the Cambridge green belt despite visual and heritage drawbacks.

The proposal comprised housing along with care, communal health, wellbeing and leisure facilities, public open space, landscaping and a publicly accessible country park on a site adjoining a village. The main parties agreed that at least one purpose of the green belt would be harmed by the proposal, and the inspector accepted that it would be inappropriate development that would adversely affect openness in spatial and visual terms. 

In terms of impact on local character, however, he concluded that physical harm to the landscape would be relatively small. While visual harm to the character of the countryside would be somewhat greater, he saw no reason to suppose that the completed development would be inconsistent with the character of the adjoining village. He also found negligible harm to nearby prehistoric ancient monuments.

Uncontested evidence from the appellants indicated that unless sites were specifically allocated for specialist care facilities, developers of such schemes would be unable to compete with providers of general housing in the housing land supply market. Moreover, their projections suggested a shortfall of 805 extra-care dwellings by 2041. The inspector also noted that the council’s statement of case afforded very significant weight to the proposal’s potential contribution to meeting local care needs. 

In his view, the council’s approach had not delivered and was not expected to deliver special care housing in anything like sufficient quantities. No policy or allocation in the adopted plan required a specific proportion of dwellings to be delivered as special care housing, he remarked. Although special care housing was mentioned in the text justifying specific allocations, he added, none had been delivered. 

Referring to government advice, the inspector recognised that housing need alone does not amount to the very special circumstances required to justify inappropriate development in the green belt. But in this case, he found, an established housing need was combined with a lack of effective action to meet that need. The scale of the country park and its ecological benefits also represented a somewhat special circumstance, he held.

Release of existing housing stock, enhanced landscaping, employment provision, economic multiplier effects and increased social cohesion also weighed in favour of approval, he decided. He concluded that the benefits of the proposal would clearly outweigh even disproportionate harm to the green belt and its openness and found that it would comply with national and local plan policy in this regard. 

Inspector: Paul Clark; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-571

Art installations on the roof of a north London building have been found to undermine the significance of a conservation area.

At the outset, the inspector determined that the competition-winning structures comprised a building operation in view of their permanence, construction on-site and fixings to the roof of the building. On the planning merits, he found that one of the installations was designed as a pre-fabricated experimental dwelling resembling a large shed in a highly visible location on the roof of the property, making it an incongruous addition. Similarly, he judged that a roof-level wood lath fence running around three sides of the appeal block was broadly equivalent to an additional storey and its highly prominent location meant it appeared incongruous. 

Thirdly, he found that a roof-level metal fence around the edge of the site, incorporating a mixture of vertical, diagonal and horizontal railings, could be clearly seen from the surrounding highways and a canal towpath, presenting a cluttered appearance to the canalside and street scene.  Finally, he held that a monopitched roof structure made of corrugated sheeting built over a staircase allowing access onto the roof appeared incongruous. 

The inspector considered that a small platform and decking at the site were acceptable, and allowed the appeal only in this respect. Overall, however, he ruled that the installations constituted conspicuous clutter that harmed the conservation area’s character and appearance and degraded its significance. He accepted that there was some public benefit in one of the structures providing accommodation for artists but found no evidence this could not be provided elsewhere. 

Inspector: Luke Perkins; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-580

A lack of integration between affordable and market homes has led to refusal of a block of retirement apartments in an Oxfordshire town.

The appeal proposal comprised 34 retirement apartments in place of a care home previously granted permission as part of a wider development scheme also providing 37 retirement apartments. An off-site affordable housing contribution agreed for the permitted scheme was secured against development across the whole of the wider site. In that light, the inspector judged that provision of affordable retirement apartments in lieu of the agreed off-site affordable contribution should be considered in the context of the whole development site.

He found that the affordable element would be would be located in a single block physically separated from the well spaced out market housing. In his view, this lack of physical integration posed a clear risk of segregation between market and affordable accommodation, exaggerated by their markedly different appearance. This outcome would be in direct conflict with adopted policy requirements for affordable and market units to be indistinguishable in appearance, he found. 

In terms of tenure mix, the inspector found that all the affordable housing would be provided as an affordable rent product, which would further conflict with policy requirements for a tenure mix of 40 per cent affordable rented, 35 per cent social rented and 25 per cent other routes to home ownership. Overall, he concluded that it would create a development of two distinct halves, which would be visually harmful to the character and appearance of the wider development site.

Inspector: James Blackwell
DCS Number: 400-033-952

Energy development 

The proposed route of an onshore connection for a submarine electricity transmission link has been held to have been insufficiently justified. 

The secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy refused development consent for the 2,000-MW AQUIND interconnector between the UK and France against his examiners’ recommendation. While acknowledging their conclusion that the need for the link outweighed identified harm, he maintained that it would have long-term adverse landscape and visual impacts. His concerns included some local harm to the setting of the South Downs National Park, a scheduled ancient monument and listed buildings, as well as harm caused by private losses through compulsory purchase.

In his view, insufficient consideration had been given to potentially less harmful alternative routes through densely populated urban areas. The appellants had also failed to adequately consider the feasibility of using an alternative substation location with potential for fewer adverse impacts, he held. Weighing this consideration in the planning balance with the remaining harmful effects of the proposed route, he determined that the need for and benefits of the proposed development would not outweigh its impacts.

Examiners: Andrew Mahon, Stephen Roscoe, David Wallis; Virtual hearing and written representations
DCS Number: 200-010-610

Housing new build

No townscape harm would be caused by allowing 206 high-rise flats on brownfield land in a Surrey town centre, an inspector has ruled. 

The council and local objectors had expressed concerns over the height of the scheme, which comprised two towers of 15 and 13 storeys. The objectors were concerned that the development would be higher than surrounding buildings, including an adjacent department store and multi-storey car park. After referring to the appellants’ townscape appraisal, the inspector decided that although the slim towers would appear in certain skyline views, they would not appear over-dominant. The characteristics of adjoining land and buildings did not mean that their height could not be exceeded, he reasoned. 

Noting the site’s derelict state and the fact that it did not lie within a conservation area, he concluded that the proposal would make a positive contribution to the street scene and that there would be no overall harm to the area’s character and appearance. He acknowledged that the site was allocated in the local plan for retail as well as non-retail uses, but noted the overall consensus among the parties that this policy carried little weight due to recent considerable changes in retail demand and shopping patterns.

The essentially car-free nature of the development meant that parking provision would be significantly below the standards set out in council policy, the inspector noted. However, he accepted that making provision for a car club would be adequate given its accessible town centre location and that some on-street parking would not harm nearby residents’ living conditions. In allowing the appeal, he gave weight to the benefit of providing homes in an area of under-delivery of housing and with a five-year supply shortfall, as well as making beneficial use of an unused prominent town centre site.

Inspector: Mike Worden; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-601

A district-wide housing land shortfall has helped persuade an inspector to approve 200 houses outside a West Sussex growth village.

The site, comprising paddocks, was separated from the village by railway lines, with planned major housing development nearby. Subject to improved connectivity with the village facilities and a station, the inspector concluded that the appeal proposal, while contrary to the development plan, would be a logical consolidation of development. In his view, its landscape effects would be limited and localised owing to half the site being given over to a green buffer.

The inspector agreed with the council that increased use of unmanned level footpath crossings over the railway, with the proximity of new houses increasing the likelihood of children playing near the crossings, would not be safe. However, during the course of the appeal, the appellants and Network Rail agreed improvements such as a footbridge and underpass. Subject to a Grampian-style condition, the inspector was satisfied that safe links to local facilities could be achieved.

Applying the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development, he concluded that the scheme’s housing and other benefits outweighed harm to the setting of a conservation area and conflict with the development plan. He acknowledged the strength of local community objection to the scheme but did not consider that allowing it would undermine the emerging neighbourhood plan, which in any event was not intended to address such strategic-sized sites.

Inspector: David Spencer; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-576

An acute and unmet housing need has led an inspector to approve a 99-home development on the edge of a Surrey village.

The inspector noted that the minimum number of new homes earmarked for the village in the local plan had already been exceeded by completions and commitments and that it would double in size as a result of recent consents. However, he was satisfied that allowing the appeal proposal would not result in an excessive or disproportionate increase in the number of homes in the village. He noted that no cap on its growth had been imposed in the local plan and a sustainability appraisal recognised that it had relatively few environmental constraints. 

He also rejected the council’s reason for refusal regarding the appeal location’s limited accessibility to local services and facilities. In his view, opportunities for sustainable transport had been optimised through a new on-demand bus service contribution, bus shelters, pedestrian routes and footway enhancements. He recognised that the proposal would have some localised landscape and visual impacts, leading to some harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. However, he concluded that these adverse impacts would be limited by the ordinary nature of the surrounding landscape and the site’s strong visual containment.

In assessing the housing land supply position, the inspector accepted the appellants’ argument that several sites on which the council relied could not be regarded as deliverable within the relevant five-year period. His view was that the council’s supply figure should be reduced by 1,000, leaving only a four-year supply rather than the 5.2-year supply claimed. He therefore ruled that the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework was triggered. 

In approving the scheme, the inspector found that it would cause no unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and no conflict with the spatial strategy set out in the local plan. He concluded that the case for allowing the appeal was compelling and saw no reason to withhold planning permission, whether based on compliance with the development plan or applying the tilted balance. The appeal site represented a rare resource in this constrained county, he remarked.

Inspector: Harold Stephens; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-588

An unacceptable tenure and size mix means an affordable homes scheme in west London would not meet local needs, an inspector has ruled.

The 52-apartment car-free scheme was proposed for an underused car park at a London Underground station. The homes would all be one-bedroom flats for sale to first-time buyers living or working in the borough at a discount of 20 per cent on market value. The appellants advocated the scheme under the London Plan “fast-track” approach, which allows schemes to avoid the need for viability testing where they exceed a certain percentage of affordable housing. They argued that the policy allowed for a deviation from expected tenure splits.

The council did not support the tenure mix proposed, arguing that development plan policy expected affordable housing proposals to provide a range of unit sizes and tenures. The inspector remarked that the fast-track approach included a requirement for tenure mix to be acceptable to the borough. In the absence of compelling evidence that the need for one-bedroom intermediate sale properties was any greater than the need for other home sizes and tenures, he found no justification for deviating from the tenure split set out in the local plan, irrespective of whether the scheme would maximise the number of affordable dwellings provided.

The inspector noted that Transport for London had identified the car park as surplus to its requirements and that survey evidence from various sources indicated it was never more than half full. He found that highways harm arising from increased parking demand would be avoided through the scheme retaining three disabled parking spaces and surrounding streets being able to accommodate any displaced parking. 

Inspector: John Dowsett; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-010-605 

A compelling need for open space has led to approval of 44 homes in an area of Cambridgeshire with a demonstrable five-year housing land supply.  

The scheme would provide 1.3 hectares of open space, including a full-sized football pitch and two junior pitches, in a village with an identified 4.3 hectare shortfall. The inspector recognised that development plan policies normally restricted development in this category of village to eight dwellings. However, he noted that three larger developments had been approved in the village in recent years, including one for 53 houses allowed on appeal.

While recognising that the present scheme would similarly conflict with the council’s settlement strategy, he found that only limited harm would arise as a result of relatively poor access to shopping facilities. He accepted that the council could show almost 5.1 years’ housing land supply, but saw provision of public open space and a significant contribution to market and affordable housing needs as clear reasons to grant permission. 

Inspector: David Reed; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-010-595

Concerns over an incongruous design have led to prior approval being denied for a replacement block of 33 apartments in Lichfield.

The appeal site formed part of a small group of warehouses along a main road in a predominantly residential area characterised by two-storey buildings, including the one to be replaced. Given these surroundings, the inspector considered that the four-storey building proposed would be a significant and incongruous feature in a prominent position. The General Permitted Development Order’s allowance for up to two additional floors also required an assessment of design and external appearance, he noted.

In this instance, the inspector found the additional height inappropriate. He concluded that this would render the new building’s design and external appearance harmful to its context. In his view, it would not comply with the design aims of the National Planning Policy Framework, including the requirements in paragraphs 124, 126, 130 and 134 for high-quality buildings that are sympathetic to local character and maintain a strong sense of place. 

Inspector: Samuel Watson; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-033-799

A proposed new house in Devon has been judged not to meet the exceptional quality design test set in national policy. 

The site comprised garden land on the edge of a hamlet in the Dartmoor National Park. The appellants proposed to remodel the host dwelling to create two contemporary designed low-energy homes linked by a wing providing a utility room, plant room and garage space. The inspector accepted that the site made only a small contribution to the national park’s character and appearance. 

He also found the proposal, which had received broad support from an independent design review panel, a thoughtful design response to the site. However, he could not see how it would be so remarkable or excellent as to reach the very high bar set by paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework for isolated new homes in the countryside. 

The inspector found nothing original or unusual about the architecture or technology incorporated in the proposal. He also held that the scheme’s domestic appearance would harm the national park landscape. It would therefore fail to comply with the requirement for development to significantly enhance its immediate setting and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area, he summed up. 

Inspector: Neil Pope; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-034-095

Householder development

Impact on metropolitan open land (MOL) has been ruled irrelevant in deciding whether a house extension in south-west London is permitted development.

The appellant claimed that adding a single storey to a bungalow was permitted development under class AA, part 1, schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015. The council alleged that the scale, bulk and mass of the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the open character of MOL. However, the inspector noted that the prior approval process only requires an assessment of the impact of the permitted development on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse in terms of its design and architectural features, rather than on openness. 

Had the government wished to restrict rights to build an additional storey in locations such as MOL, he reasoned, it could have done so. In any event, he added, the house was located on a narrow, tree-lined street adjacent to two-storey housing, it was not particularly prominent from wider vantage points and the extension had been designed to match the existing building and use of materials. It was therefore permitted development irrespective of its impact on openness, he concluded.

Inspector: Chris Preston; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-034-012

Mixed development 

No harm to character, appearance or living conditions would result from a mixed-use redevelopment in a Surrey town centre, an inspector has ruled.

The scheme comprised 929 homes, communal spaces, commercial uses and a homeless shelter in five blocks of between nine and 37 storeys. By the time of the inquiry the council had only one outstanding objection, regarding living conditions and loss of privacy, but local residents maintained objections related to character and appearance, in particular over the height of the four tallest buildings proposed. On this issue, the inspector held that the question was not whether the site was suitable for tall buildings but what height they should be.

In his view, the site’s planning policy context allowed for and positively encouraged tall buildings, since that was the context of the wider area. He found the difference between the tallest building proposed and an existing one nearby inconsequential. He concluded that the scheme, which had been appraised by a design review panel, was a well designed high-density development that would enhance the town centre’s image without compromising its character and appearance.

On the scheme’s impact on living conditions for residents in a nearby block of flats, the inspector accepted that not all the proposed flats would meet internal standards set out in BRE good practice guidance on Site Planning for Daylight and Sunlight. However, he was satisfied that reduced daylight would not make living conditions unacceptable in these properties. He also noted that the adjacent block could soon be redeveloped under a compulsory purchase order. 

The inspector could find no policy conflict arising from the proposal. In allowing the appeal, he cited the benefits arising from provision of additional homes in an unconstrained and sustainably located site, a £10 million contribution to highway infrastructure works to transform the town centre and the provision of purpose-built community buildings. 

Inspector: John Braithwaite; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-583

Following a careful assessment of design quality and wider impacts, a major development in Basildon town centre has been granted permission.

The proposal involved commercial and business uses and 492 apartments in a 17-storey building. The appellants argued that the design would not compete with another landmark building in the town centre and that a published masterplan recognised that some taller buildings would improve the area’s legibility. The inspector found that the unique landmark quality of the existing building would not be materially eroded. He noted that pre-application discussions had confirmed that a 17-storey building would be acceptable in principle, finding that the appellants’ design team clearly had in mind Basildon’s origins, architecture and urban form.

The design comprised towers, pavilions and podiums, each with an identifiable base. The inspector found that brickwork pillars provided robust vertical framing and the pavilions incorporated generous glazing, while the upper floors of the towers were delineated with a strong course of brickwork. Overall, he judged that this configuration would create new landmarks related to patterns of movement and emphasise the importance of this part of the town centre.

The appellants proposed a main entrance with a seating area and concierge services, from which residents would ascend to a first floor and disperse into residential blocks via a communal courtyard. While finding that the design had some limitations, the inspector accepted that it would enable residents to meet each other before accessing their apartments. Two podium gardens that would receive direct sunlight, supplemented by three rooftop terraces, were also judged acceptable.

A principal issue focused on whether the council’s assessment of housing deliverability was justified. The inspector decided that a substantial part of the council’s supply did not meet the threshold of deliverability as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance, since several sites did not have planning permission and clear evidence that completions would begin within five years on others was lacking. The inspector did not accept the council’s claim that it could demonstrate 3.3 years' supply, finding it likely to be less than two years.

Inspector: David Rose; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-543

Flood risk concerns have led to refusal of plans for a health facility and 233 flats in west London.

The appeal site lay in an area defined as having a medium probability of flooding where local and national planning policies sought to allow development only if no other appropriate sites were available. The council could show an adequate supply of housing land and there were reasonably available sites for residential development in areas that had been sequentially tested and found to be preferable to the appeal site, the inspector found. 

The appeal proposal was predicated on the residential element acting as enabling development to fund construction of the health centre and subsidise its rent for the first 15 years. The inspector therefore focused on the need for the health centre and whether there were reasonably available sites that could accommodate it in areas with a lower risk of flooding.

It was common ground between the parties that the area’s existing health centre was deficient in its quality of accommodation, space to accommodate additional medical services and capacity to meet increased demand from a growing population. The council argued that two alternative sites met the sequential test, one allocated in the local plan for mixed-use development and the other at the existing health centre. 

The inspector held that both of these sites represented feasible and viable options for a health centre and had a lower risk of flooding than the appeal site. In his view, the allocated site offered potential for a cross-subsidised scheme including housing, while redevelopment of the existing health centre site could be subsidised from infrastructure funding earmarked to improve health care in the borough. While recognising the considerable challenges arising from decanting health services to another site during redevelopment, he did not think the latter proposal would be unachievable.

Overall, the inspector decided that the need for the health centre was not so urgent that it overrode flood risk considerations. The proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole, he concluded. He found that its benefits, significant though some of them were, did not outweigh failure to meet the sequential test and the harm that would result from placing new development at risk of flooding. 

Inspector: Guy Davies; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-586

Design concerns have prompted refusal of a scheme to regenerate a vacant police station in Newcastle city centre.

The proposal comprised the retention of the main four-storey part of the rundown 1960s building and its conversion into 15 flats, with retail units and a dental surgery on the ground floor. The scheme would be cross-subsidised by a separate proposal to erect a drive-through Burger King restaurant on another part of the site following demolition of a single-storey wing.

While the council had raised concerns over the cladding colours proposed for the main building, officers advised that this could be addressed by a condition requiring external materials to be agreed. The inspector disagreed, stating that the choice of materials was integral to the overall design. In her opinion, the use of dark charred cedar cladding would give the main building a monolithic appearance that would be out of scale in this townscape setting. Its use on the flat-roofed restaurant would create an anonymous black box more suited to a retail park, she found. 

In conclusion, the inspector commented that the scheme’s benefits and the financial viability challenges of regenerating the site did not mean that design quality could be ignored. In her view, the scheme design did not respond positively to local distinctiveness and character and would do little to enhance the appearance of the city from a major movement corridor. She held that this would harm local character and appearance, and this could not be overcome by imposing conditions.

Inspector: Jennifer Vyse; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-614

Retail development

No unacceptable highways impact would result from converting two non-food units on a Kent retail park to a food store, an inspector has ruled.

The appellants sought to vary a condition restricting the types of goods sold from two non-food retail units and to amalgamate them as an Aldi food store. The council’s sole objection was over impact on the highway network. Officers had not recommended refusal and the highway authority had not objected, after the appellants demonstrated that no sequentially preferable sites were available and that the scheme posed no threat to the vitality and viability of a town centre.   

Following the committee’s decision, the council commissioned an independent transport assessment which advised that trip rates associated with a new food store would be significantly higher than indicated in the appellant’s transport assessment and would exceed junction capacity during the Saturday peak. But the inspector noted that the appellants’ evidence on trip generation rates was derived from a nearby Aldi store similarly related to the highway network, rather than comparison with sites elsewhere in the UK, and that it took account of linked trips to an existing M&S on the park. 

He acknowledged the difficulties in assessing travel patterns due to the Covid-19 pandemic. However, on the basis of the best available evidence, he concluded that potential peak time internal queuing at the site would not result in a severe impact on the wider highway network. Lifting the condition would not result in a significant change in traffic conditions at the retail park, he concluded. While allowing the appeal, he declined to award costs to the appellants.

Inspector: David Prentis; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-034-034