Key decisions

Housing new build

A proposal for 91 homes in Wiltshire on land forming part of a strategic allocation has been held to conflict with a masterplan approach for the wider site.

The inspector found that over the previous seven years, the appellants had sought to progress their proposals as though the site were a separate development plan allocation for housing. He judged that a failure to bring the development proposal forward as part of the masterplanning process for the strategic site put the proposal squarely in conflict with development plan policies. These identified a single site-wide strategic allocation for a mix of 15 hectares of employment land and 2,600 homes. As part of the allocation policy, a delivery strategy was set out that required a masterplan to be prepared collaboratively and approved by the council as part of the planning application process.

He ruled that these policies carried full weight regardless of a five-year housing land supply shortfall. He also decided that the proposal contravened other development management policies, such as on highway safety, area character, amenity of existing residents and provision of school places.

In the overall planning balance, the inspector concluded that the adverse effects of the proposal, including conflict with the development plan, significantly and demonstrably outweighed the housing and economic benefits

Inspector: Paul Singleton; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-177

Comment: This appeal is an example of an inspector giving full weight to key local plan policies despite acknowledging a five-year housing land supply shortfall. In this case, the appellants had submitted a proposal for a site that was part of a wider strategic allocation outside of a masterplaning exercise for the allocation, which was a requirement of the site policy. The inspector found that the policy requiring the masterplan should be given full weight. He pointed out that, while the National Planning Policy Framework deemed policies most important for the determination of the appeal to be out of date in the absence of a five-year land supply, “it does not prescribe the weight to be given to them”. In this case, because the site was part of an allocation and there was no in-principal objection to the development, key policies including this one were not diminished by virtue of the absence of the five-year land supply, and neither were a range of development management policies, he ruled. The inspector went on to ascribe “very substantial weight” to the conflict with some of these policies and dismissed the appeal.

The proposed redevelopment of an industrial building in the West Midlands as 14 flats has been deemed incompatible with neighbouring industry.

The appellants proposed the redevelopment of the building and yard at a safeguarded industrial site in a mixed residential and industrial area. The main issue at the appeal was whether living conditions for future occupiers would be acceptable, after the council had identified potential for tension between residential development and nearby industrial businesses currently operating without restrictions on noise, emissions or hours.

The appellant’s noise assessment found that there would be a significant adverse effect on health and quality of life for occupiers, but that could be mitigated through the provision of double glazing and a mechanical ventilation system to reduce the need to open windows and acoustic fencing. However, the inspector noted that residents would not be prevented from opening windows and it was likely that noise would enter the four-storey building at levels above the acoustic fencing, also restricting use of balconies. Although acoustic fencing would help to alleviate noise levels at ground level, she identified a further concern regarding potential odours, which could not be mitigated by the fence. This would serve to limit enjoyment of private garden areas and communal outdoor amenity spaces, she held.

The inspector concluded that the noise and odour disturbance was insufficiently mitigated and would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of future occupiers of the flats, leading to unacceptable constraints on adjacent industry. In her view, the proposal therefore did not accord with the requirement in paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework for decisions to ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses. The benefits of housing in the context of a five-year housing land supply shortfall did not outweigh the adverse effects of the development, she maintained.

Inspector: Helen Smith; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-037-054

Comment: Two cases this month illustrate how difficult it can be for developers to overcome the so-called “agent of change” principle. This is the concept whereby the ongoing integrity of existing uses such as industrial or other noise- or pollution-generating premises should not be compromised by the introduction of subsequent uses. Both of these cases arose in the West Midlands. This first appeal involved a proposal for the redevelopment of premises in the Black Country as housing in a designated industrial area. It was scuppered when the inspector said the proposal would not be able to sufficiently mitigate noise and odour impacts from the adjoining premises. There was a risk that ensuring future residential amenity would impose unacceptable constraints on adjacent industry. In the second case (DCS No: 400-036-844), a proposal to convert two workshops in Birmingham’s Jewellery Quarter into live-work units was also dismissed. This was partly on the grounds that increasing the number of homes near to existing industrial uses could result in compatibility issues that could threaten the continuation of the traditional uses. In this case, the inspector ruled that the proposal would threaten industry intrinsic to the character of what was a designated conservation area.

Latest cases

Community facilities

Design concerns over a proposed retirement living scheme in a south London suburb have been dismissed.

The proposal for 30 retirement apartments in a three-storey building on the site of a detached two-storey house was approved after an inspector held that the scheme would not harm local character and appearance. Assessing the design of the scheme, the inspector found the council’s criticisms of its height, bulk and aspects of the architecture lacked evidential support.

He commended the council in seeking to raise design standards across the borough, but argued that schemes in areas without townscape designations should only be refused where they would cause harm. In his view, the appellant’s design and access statement and townscape and visual assessment demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable effect. The degree of change, he held, would be modest and “largely neutral”. He also noted the benefit of underground car parking in helping to alleviate the dominance of parking in the street scene, despite the council’s claim that it was out of keeping in a residential suburb.

In his conclusions on living conditions, the inspector found some policy conflict on the issue of balcony sizes. However, he decided that overall the development would provide a good standard for future residents. On the issue of housing mix, he determined that the scheme would meet an identified need for older persons’ housing. It would also release larger homes back into the market, having a positive effect on housing choice, he added.

Inspector: Dominic Young; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-167

Energy development

The benefits of a major airport being powered by renewable energy have been held to justify a proposed solar farm in Essex.

Planning permission was granted for the 14.3-megawatt facility after an application was submitted directly to the secretary of state under section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which allows for such applications to be submitted in this way where a local planning authority has been designated. In this case, the authority was designated for major applications and a hearing was held on the proposal.

The proposed solar farm, covering an area of 22 hectares, was intended to power nearby Stansted Airport, and the decision on the scheme was made by a person appointed by the secretary of state. The appointed decision-maker acknowledged the significant benefits of the proposal and said these had to be weighed against conflict with development plan policies seeking to avoid loss of top-quality agricultural land and to maintain a buffer belt of countryside around the airport to prevent coalescence with surrounding settlements.

In the decision-maker’s view, the low-level solar panels would not have a material effect on coalescence and only a very limited visual effect on openness. Most of the development would be at or below the height of proposed hedgerows and well contained within woodland, he held, and only moderate harm would result from a temporary 25-year loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, given the lack of alternative sites for the proposal and the small scale of the site relative to available agricultural land in the district.

The decision-maker noted that the solar farm would generate sufficient renewable energy at full output to secure carbon-neutral status for the operation of the airport. It would also enhance the landscape with new and strengthened hedgerow planting and managed areas of improved habitat, providing a biodiversity net gain, he judged. He decided that these benefits outweighed the landscape and visual impacts of a large-scale solar farm and that these impacts would in any event diminish over time, with the landscape eventually being restored.

Appointed decision-maker: Mike Robins; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-138

Housing new build

A failure to achieve exemplary design has been held to justify refusing plans for apartment blocks on a brownfield site in south London.

The appellants proposed to build two blocks of flats providing 75 open-market and 41 affordable homes on the site of two retail warehouses. The scheme proposed two tower blocks, one rising to 12 storeys, in an area identified for regeneration in an emerging local plan and masterplan, the inspector noted. The documents anticipated development of up to 12 storeys at focal points and up to eight storeys at gateways, he added.

The inspector accepted that the appellants had made efforts to accord with the thrust of these documents. However, he held that, due to timescales and outstanding objections, they should be given limited weight. In any event, his view was that the site was at best a gateway where building heights should be lower than proposed.

The inspector decided that the proposal should be assessed against existing adopted tall building policy requiring an exceptional design quality. Carrying out this assessment, he found that the tall blocks would result in an uncomfortable transition from the much lower residential and commercial buildings nearby. In the current townscape context, the scheme would not amount to a good design, he determined.

Other design shortcomings were also identified in his assessment, including generic landscaping, monotone materials and a large number of single-aspect flats facing north. In his judgement, the scheme’s failure to attain the high bar of exemplary design required by adopted policy outweighed its benefit in providing much-needed housing and affordable housing.

Inspector: David Nicholson; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-158

A greenfield housing scheme in east Scotland has been refused after the council was judged to have a sufficient housing supply.

A reporter denied permission in principle for the major housing proposal outside the settlement boundary of a coastal town. The appellants argued that the council had less than a five-year effective housing land supply. They argued that, in line with Scottish Planning Policy, a presumption in favour of the development was therefore engaged and the development plan housing strategy was rendered out of date. 

In considering the calculation of housing land supply, the reporter preferred the “residual” method, taking into account a strong rate of housing completions in the plan period. Not taking this approach would be tantamount to increasing the overall housing land requirement, he maintained. Assessing evidence from the council’s housing land audits, the reporter concluded that a generous supply of effective housing land supply substantially in excess of five years was being maintained. This was the case even if the appellants’ alternative “average” method for calculating housing supply – based on an annual housing target multiplied by five – was used, he noted.

In the absence of a shortfall, the reporter concluded that there was no policy basis for housing in a location contrary to the council’s spatial strategy. The appellants’ claims of a lack of choice of sites and poor distribution of supply across the settlement hierarchy were not a matter for individual decisions, he ruled. Having so found, the reporter dismissed the appeal without considering matters including loss of prime agricultural land, effects on the town’s landscape setting and noise from a main road.

Reporter: Christopher Warren; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-036-987 

A proposed greenfield housing scheme on the edge of Exeter has been held to be well-related to existing urban form.

An inspector allowed the proposal for 93 homes on agricultural land on the urban fringe of the city, judging that the scheme would constitute a sustainable urban extension. She noted that the fields formed part of the rolling hillside setting of the city outside the urban boundary. In terms of the principle of the development, she found the site to be well-served by public transport and within walking distance of local services and facilities. It was therefore in a sustainable location compliant with saved local plan policy, she judged.

In her view, policy that sought to avoid housing development within the city’s landscape setting was inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework approach to protecting the countryside and carried very little weight. She found that by keeping the developable area below the contour at which the city’s green landscape backcloth became more obvious, the parameter plan had demonstrated only localised effects on area character. More prominent open land further up the hillside was indicated to become a new public park, she observed.

The access road to the housing site was proposed to bisect an existing public open space, which had prompted strong local objections. But the inspector noted that additional open space would be provided immediately adjacent to this, within the appeal site. She also recorded that mitigation in the form of funding secured by legal agreement for a landscape buffer alongside the road would be provided. She therefore concluded that the loss of the open space had been adequately compensated for in terms of local plan policy.

Giving great weight to the benefits of the quantum of market and affordable houses proposed in light of a less than modest housing shortfall, the inspector concluded that the adverse impacts of the development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

Inspector: Hannah Porter; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-136

The benefits of proposed new homes on the edge of a Wiltshire town have been held to outweigh conflict with local plan policies.

The appellants had two sites, one of which was scrubland where 26 houses were proposed and the other was pastureland beyond, where it wanted to build another 50. The sites were located close to the urban fringe but outside the settlement boundary and both raised the same main issues of landscape effects and location.

The inspector found both sites to be well-related to the settlement edge. In his view, development on either site, whether jointly or in isolation, would have only a limited adverse effect and neither proposal would harm the rural setting of the town nor the perception of the town being set within attractive countryside. Proposed landscaping enhancement of existing hedge boundaries would provide a new countryside edge to the settlement, he maintained. This would soften the visual effects of development and ensure that a rural character to the area was retained, he held.

Regarding the issue of location, the inspector noted the council’s current approach to addressing a persistent five-year land housing supply shortfall. This, he found, included an intention to positively consider speculative applications where there are no major policy obstacles other than the site being outside settlement boundaries. He also noted that, although the town’s neighbourhood plan had allocated other sites for housing, it was silent on further unplanned new housing outside settlement boundaries.

In the inspector’s view, both sites would be in a suitable sustainable location for residential development, adjacent to a second-tier settlement in the hierarchy, albeit that there would be some limited conflict with the development plan. Overall, he ruled that the substantial benefits of housing outweighed only limited adverse effects of development in the tilted balance.

Inspector: Geoff Underwood; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-191

The “very substantial” benefits of affordable homes provision on a greenfield site in Derbyshire have been held to outweigh development plan conflict.

An inspector determined that the advantage of meeting an identified housing need in a preferred location on the edge of a town justified 70 affordable homes. The site, currently agricultural land, had been allocated for 55 houses, the inspector observed. The council had objected to the increase in density of development, but the inspector noted that the site area in the appeal scheme had been increased to provide drainage basins and would provide a larger area of green space to offset the additional built form.

In the inspector’s view, although the density of the site overall would be greater than surrounding developments, this would be offset by generous rear gardens, open space, woodland, meadow and play areas. Overall, there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the area due to an overdevelopment of the site, the inspector decided, also noting that public open space and forest planting exceeded requirements set out in a supplementary planning document.

The inspector agreed that developer contributions proposed by the appellant fell substantially below those requested by the council and would result in under-delivery of supporting infrastructure. Nonetheless, the inspector took account of evidence of the council’s under-delivery on affordable housing targets and deteriorating affordability.

Another factor taken into account was the appellant’s viability assessment, which indicated that provision of the full financial contributions requested would render the development unviable. The inspector concluded that the very substantial benefit of affordable housing justified permitting the scheme, contrary to the development plan.

Inspector: C McDonagh; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-036-929

Harm to the landscape setting of a grade I listed church has thwarted a proposed greenfield housing development in Somerset.

An inspector dismissed the proposal for 61 homes outside a village, finding that the harm to the church was unjustified by the benefit of housing. Assessing the landscape impact of the proposal, the inspector judged that the gateway development would be readily apparent in views approaching the village. It would occupy a significant portion of the open land that created an attractive setting to the village, including the listed church, the inspector added.

The council and appellant agreed that harm to the heritage asset would be at the lowermost end of “less than substantial” harm. However, the inspector decided that account should be taken of the exceptional interest of the church as a grade I listed building. In that context, even the great weight to be given to the public benefit of housing in the context of a longstanding and substantial shortfall was not enough to outweigh this harm, the inspector held.

With the tilted balance disengaged, the inspector determined that harm to the special interest and significance of the listed church was a weighty material consideration. This, the inspector concluded, indicated that planning permission should be withheld and the appeal dismissed.

Inspector: GD Jones; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-135

The benefits of proposed new homes at a redundant hospital site in Derbyshire have been held to outweigh heritage harm.

An inspector approved an outline scheme for 52 new homes, including three affordable, on the site of the hospital, a non-designated heritage asset on the edge of a market town. The inspector found no policy support for the council's preferred viable alternative retaining more of the historic buildings. 

The inspector noted that while the proposal would retain the original workhouse – a key building at the front of the site – the rest of the buildings would be demolished. The council objected to the loss of local heritage significance, contributing to area character, citing conflict with local plan policy seeking to conserve heritage assets. In doing so, it had provided evidence that it was viable to convert another prominent building on the site.

The inspector agreed that it would be viable to convert rather than demolish the infirmary. However, in the view of the inspector, local policy was not entirely consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) approach to heritage because it failed to distinguish between designated and non-designated heritage assets (NDHAs). Therefore, policy requirements to demonstrate that the proposal was the optimum viable use for the site involving the least change to historic fabric exceeded NPPF thresholds for NDHAs, the inspector held.

Having so found, the inspector gave no weight to the lesser harm arising from the hypothetical alternative scheme in the decision. With the inspector finding a modest shortfall in five-year housing land supply, the tilted balance was triggered. In this context, the inspector attributed moderate weight to the harm to NDHAs, but concluded that it was outweighed by the benefit of housing on brownfield land in a sustainable location.

Inspector: R Walker; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-153

The benefits of a proposal for 45 homes on the edge of a large village in West Sussex have been held to outweigh any adverse impacts.

The parties agreed that the supply of housing land stood at 2.73 years, based on the standard methodology for assessing housing need, which adopted an unconstrained approach. The council stated that this resulted in a requirement significantly higher than that within its core strategy. This document, it argued, was based on objectively assessed need taking into account constraints including flood risk and the impact on wildlife sites and the South Downs National Park. On this basis, it contended that reduced weight should be given to the housing requirement derived under the standard method.

However, the inspector noted that the impact of physical constraints on the housing requirement was not referenced in the standard method. Whether a constrained land supply figure should be included in any future local plan would be a matter for a local plan reviewed and tested through examination, he remarked. The council had embarked on a review but it was at an early stage and the inspector noted that an interim policy statement adopted by the council accepted that new housing would be required outside existing settlement boundaries.

The inspector decided that the development would not be out of scale with the village. He accepted that it would cause some harm to landscape character and the appearance of the area but, in his view, this was moderated by the degree to which the site was self-contained. He gave significant weight to the delivery of affordable and open-market housing and noted that the provision of open space would be available to future and existing residents, while giving moderate weight to the net gain in biodiversity he found would result from the scheme.

Inspector: Guy Davies; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-181

A proposed housing scheme on the edge of a Bedfordshire village has been deemed harmful to intrinsic countryside character.

An inspector refused permission for up to 35 houses, including 14 affordable homes, at the edge of the linear village after finding that the scheme would breach the settlement boundary. He determined that the development was proposed in a sensitive location and would result in the urbanisation of the settlement’s tranquil riverside setting.

In the inspector’s opinion, the loss of openness and erosion of the pastureland site’s undeveloped qualities would reduce an important separation between the built edge of the village and the adjacent riverside environment, and undermine how the village blended naturally into the countryside. Settlement envelopes help to define urban and rural character areas, he held. In his view, the site could not accommodate the amount of development proposed without harming this distinction. The development would therefore risk undermining the council’s settlement hierarchy, he maintained.

The council had a recently-adopted local plan and was able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, the inspector noted. Despite the scheme helping to boost the supply of housing, as sought by government policy, the inspector ruled that it was contrary to development plan policy restricting new housing outside settlement envelopes. It would conflict with the aim of the policy to protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, he concluded.

Inspector: Paul Thompson; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-037-044

The potential for a housing proposal in Norfolk to alleviate a shortfall caused by nutrient neutrality issues has been held to justify the scheme.

An inspector granted permission for 19 homes, including six affordable, on a paddock outside a village after finding that the scheme could be delivered quickly. She noted that this would help to meet a short-term housing shortfall resulting from nutrient neutrality issues.

The council acknowledged that it could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply due to the impacts of nutrient neutrality on housing sites within the catchment area. It acknowledged that this would be the case until work on a strategic mitigation plan had been finalised or an expected revision to national guidance on the issue was published.

The inspector dismissed claims that securing suitable access was a risk to the deliverability of the site outweighing any benefits arising from the development. She ruled that, subject to a commencement condition with shortened timescales for submission of reserved matters, the scheme accorded with local plan policy requiring development outside the defined settlement boundaries to demonstrate overriding benefits.

The inspector gave great weight to the site’s location outside of the nutrient neutrality catchment area. In her view, this meant that it could be delivered in the short term. Therefore, she concluded that some harm to the rural character and appearance of the area from urbanisation and encroachment into the countryside was outweighed by the development’s contribution of market and affordable homes. This, she held, would help to address a short-term shortfall on a small site in a sustainable location compliant with the neighbourhood plan.

Inspector: G Pannell; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-132

Design concerns have ruled out a housing scheme proposed for a burgage plot behind a listed building in Oxfordshire.

The proposal was for the demolition of existing outbuildings and the redevelopment of a commercial yard behind the listed building in the centre of a market town. The redevelopment would have comprised two new buildings accommodating four flats and a maisonette.

The inspector found that the existing buildings on the site, despite their declining condition and appearance, contributed to the setting and significance of the listed building. In his view, they were good surviving examples of vernacular industrial architecture set within burgage plots and contributed to the historic grain of development in the area.

The inspector judged that the replacement buildings would crowd the burgage plots and lead to a cramped appearance, eroding any contribution to the significance and setting of the listed building and the character and appearance of the conservation area. He held that the proposed development’s failure to create a high-quality design was contrary to the development plan. In his view, the effective use of brownfield land to deliver car-free housing in an accessible location did not outweigh the less than substantial harm to heritage assets.

Inspector: Paul Thompson; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-036-925

Housing conversion

A proposed office-to-residential prior approval scheme in Surrey has been held to be in conflict with standards for adequate natural daylight.

Based on the appellants’ own internal daylight report, the inspector refused prior approval for the conversion of offices in a suburban village into 51 flats. The main issues in the appeal were whether the proposal provided adequate natural daylight in all habitable rooms, in accordance with class O, part 3, schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015. Also under discussion was whether the scheme complied with the requirement to meet nationally described space standards (NDSSs).

The appellant’s daylight report had applied the British Standard Code of Practice Design Standards and Building Research Establishment guidelines to identify six marginal and two significant shortfalls in daylight standards. In two of the flats, the lounge-kitchen-diner was found to have an average daylight factor of below one per cent, against a target of 1.5 per cent.

The inspector observed that the code of practice and guidelines used were well-established ways of testing natural light. He concluded that the marginal breaches would still achieve adequate levels of amenity but that the more significant breaches would not. The appeal proposal therefore failed to provide adequate natural light in all habitable rooms, he ruled.

The council also pointed out that the appellant’s submitted floorplans and schedule of accommodation showed minor shortfalls in floor area and room sizes in three of the flats. The inspector declared that any shortfall was a failure to meet minimum levels set by NDSSs, so the proposal therefore also failed to meet this requirement of permitted development.

Inspector: N Praine; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-037-009

A proposed shop-to-flat conversion in south-east London has been ruled not harmful to the sustainability of the local shopping centre.

An inspector granted prior approval to convert the rear part of a ground-floor shop to a flat, finding that the reduced size and layout of the remaining shop would not harm the sustainability of the local centre. Under transitional arrangements, the inspector determined the appeal with reference to the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) 2015 as it was when the application was made and before it was amended to reflect the new use class E. The main issue, the inspector held, was the effect of the proposal on the sustainability of the local centre.

The appellant challenged whether the premises lay within a key shopping area. The inspector noted that, although the GPDO does not provide a definition, the local plan identified the value of local centres within walking distance of residential areas. In view of the reasonable range of goods and services on offer, the inspector agreed with the council that it was a key shopping centre for its local community.

The proposed flat concerned the rear ground-floor area of the unit and would leave commercial floorspace of some 54 square metres and a small basement, the inspector noted. In light of other examples of small units in active commercial use in the surrounding area, the inspector judged that this would be sufficient to provide a functional unit.

The layout would result in an internal access corridor shared by the flat and shop, an arrangement the inspector accepted would put off some businesses. However, the inspector held that it did not render the commercial unit unviable. Taking into account the relatively limited number of vacant units in the centre, the inspector concluded that the proposal would be unlikely to harm the sustainability of the key shopping area.

Inspector: M Cryan; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-036-956

Householder development

The addition of an extra storey to a houseboat in London has been held to conflict with green belt policy.

The appellant proposed replacing a single-storey houseboat with a two-storey houseboat at a residential river mooring on an island on the Thames. The appeal site lay within a community of more than 60 houseboats moored around the river island and the inspector noted that the site was within metropolitan open land (MOL). The London Plan accorded this designation the same level of protection as a green belt, he observed.

The inspector first assessed whether the development satisfied any of the exceptions to inappropriate development set out in national green belt policy. He concluded that the materially larger volume and additional storey of the replacement houseboat failed the exception for replacement buildings in the same use. While there were two-storey houseboats either side of the appeal site, the space in between was already occupied and therefore the proposal could not be considered to meet the exception for village infilling, he determined.

In relation to openness, the inspector acknowledged the small size of the increase in footprint, but stated that the additional storey represented a significant vertical uplift that would block views and materially erode the openness of the site. In his view, this amounted to unrestricted sprawl, contrary to green belt purposes and policy.

The appellant pointed to a similar proposal to replace a single-storey houseboat with a two-storey structure in MOL permitted by the council. But the inspector noted that in that case, the officer’s report had been much more limited in its assessment of the proposal against green belt policy. Finding no very special circumstances to justify the inappropriate development, the inspector dismissed the appeal.

Inspector: RE Jones; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-036-990

Mixed development

The proposed redevelopment of an Essex new town shopping centre has been held to accord with policies seeking high-quality design.

The council had concerns over the effects of the scheme on town centre character and appearance. Design concerns had focused on the height, scale, massing and layout of the scheme. The council had previously resolved to grant permission, but changed its position on the proposal, stating that this was due to altered circumstances including recent appeal decisions permitting other town centre tall buildings that would alter the townscape. It also cited the greater emphasis on good design in national policy, as well as the withdrawal of an emerging local plan and town centre regeneration strategy that had envisaged tall buildings and a large number of homes in the town centre, as reasons for its changed stance on the scheme.

The proposal featured a group of nine tall towers, ranging from 15-metres high (five storeys) to 65 metres (21 storeys), providing a mix of flexible town centre uses, offices and up to 2,800 flats. The inspector acknowledged that the concentration of taller buildings would significantly change the low-rise character of this part of the planned 1960s town centre. However, in his view, the design approach reflected a need to repurpose the town centre, noting that any future local plan would rely on accommodating a large number of homes in the town centre to meet government objectives of making effective use of land and protecting the green belt. He held that the proposals would result in a well-designed place, compliant with local and national policies.

The substantial public benefits of the development outweighed only limited harm to the setting of listed buildings, the inspector concluded. With the tilted balance triggered by the lack of a five-year housing land supply, he found nothing to indicate the scheme should not be permitted.

Inspector: Mark Dakeyne; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-187

Concerns over the density and design of new homes proposed on a brownfield site in Hertfordshire have been dismissed.

An inspector approved the proposed redevelopment of a large industrial building with 289 homes and a community hub in the face of strong opposition to the appropriateness of the high-density scheme in a garden city. There was no dispute over the principle of housing development on the long-term vacant site, which was allocated for 250 homes in an emerging local plan. The main issue concerned the acceptability of the proposed design and the effect on the character and appearance of the area.

Located in a former industrial area close to the town centre where planned regeneration was taking place, the site context was in part provided by recent nine-storey tall buildings, the inspector observed. In his assessment, the scheme was a high-quality design response that provided a suitable transition in height across the site. The proposal achieved a townscape improvement by replacing the single mass of the industrial building with a series of blocks in a more sympathetic palette of materials and surrounded by landscaped gardens, he added.

A supplementary planning guidance document set a masterplan for the area that sought a lower height and density on the site, the inspector noted. But he gave this document limited weight, ruling it out of date given an urgent need for housing in the area. 

The inspector acknowledged that the garden city principles were a relevant material consideration. In his view, however, the proposed development would not detract from the area or be at odds with these principles. Rather, it was a part of the next phase in the garden city’s evolution to grow and meet modern needs, he found.

On the issue of whether the development would provide a suitable tenure and mix of housing, the inspector considered the high proportion of smaller flats allowed for the efficient use of brownfield land in an accessible central location. In his assessment, the housing mix was in line with identified needs in the borough.

Inspector: Michael Boniface; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-137

A proposal for greenfield homes at the edge of a Berkshire town has been judged to be development in the wrong place.

The appellants proposed the scheme for 197 homes and a convenience store on farmland beyond the settlement boundary of the town. They claimed that the site was located close to allocated housing sites in an area of planned urban expansion. Other windfall housing schemes had been permitted in the context of a five-year housing land supply shortfall, they argued.

In the appellants’ view, the site was well-related to the urban edge and in proximity to facilities and services, so was therefore a suitable location for providing homes to help address an ongoing housing shortfall. They also argued that the site layout would provide a buffer between the urban edge and the wider countryside.

The inspector found current housing land supply standing at 4.4 years, but recognised that this showed a slight improvement on the previous year and that the council was working on a new local plan. In his assessment of landscape and visual effects, the development would appear divorced from the main built-up area and a protrusion of built development into the open countryside, resulting in serious harm to the character and appearance of the locality. While the convenience store would offer top-up shopping, he held that it would not compensate for an overall reliance on private car travel due to the unsafe pedestrian and cycle links proposed and the distance to bus stops.

In the inspector’s judgement, this would be a development in the wrong place and would be divorced from the existing urban area. It would not deliver sufficient benefits to overcome the clear harms identified and the conflict with the development plan, he ruled.

Inspector: Philip Major; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-186

A community-led regeneration scheme in Merseyside has been scuppered after the proposed outdoor amenity space was deemed substandard.

The mixed-use scheme comprised 100 per cent affordable housing on a brownfield site in a deprived area of the town. It incorporated 41 townhouses, 66 flats, an 80-bed extra-care facility and community facilities. But the council had refused permission after expressing concerns over the provision of outdoor amenity space and parking. It also considered the proposal an overdevelopment of the site.

An inspector accepted that the scheme delivered many benefits, including its contribution towards meeting housing needs and job creation, with potential to act as a catalyst for wider regeneration. On the issue of amenity space provision, he assessed the scheme based on supplementary planning guidance issued by the council. This set out minimum sizes for gardens and private outdoor space for flats, but made an exception for smaller spaces if justified by factors such as site constraints, he noted.

Assessing the layout plans, the inspector held that the proposed private outside spaces were small and often awkwardly shaped and, apart from a canal-side open space, communal open spaces were incidental and overshadowed. The scheme fell significantly below the council’s standards, he determined. In his view, this was a result not of site constraints but of the amount of built development proposed.

The inspector found sufficient on-site parking when taking into account easy access to a nearby town centre and public transport. However, he decided that this had come at the cost of open space and resulted from too much development on the site. In the overall planning balance, the inspector concluded that the scheme’s benefits were being achieved at the expense of the overall quality of the design through an overdevelopment of the site, and the scheme would result in inadequate living conditions.

Inspector: Owen Woodwards; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-165

The proposed conversion of two workshops in Birmingham’s Jewellery Quarter into live-work units has been held to threaten conservation area character.

An inspector ruled that the proposal would threaten the traditional industry intrinsic to the character of the conservation area. The proposed reduction in commercial space ran contrary to a conservation area management plan, the inspector found. This plan highlighted the threat to the traditional manufacturing industry of the Jewellery Quarter from increased property values and a reduction in available workspace due to residential development, it was noted. In this context, retaining the integrity of surviving industrial and commercial premises was important to maintaining character and local distinctiveness, according to the inspector.

The inspector held that the appellant’s marketing evidence did not demonstrate that the workshops had been marketed at an appropriate rate nor for an appropriate time period. The inspector acknowledged the claim that it was better for the units to be used for residential purposes rather than be redundant and noted the small-scale nature of the proposal and the retention of a work element. However, the inspector found insufficient public benefit from the provision of housing to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the heritage asset.

The inspector also identified noise and air quality issues for occupiers and ruled that the living space would feel cramped. It was therefore concluded that the proposal would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers. The inspector also observed that increasing the number of homes near to existing industrial uses could result in compatibility issues that could threaten the continued traditional uses.

Inspector: L Wilson; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-036-844

Retail development

A proposal for roadside services in Lancashire, including convenience shopping, has been ruled not to harm town centre vitality and viability.

The proposed edge-of-town services included a petrol filling station with ancillary convenience retail floorspace and a drive-through coffee unit. The council argued the proposed services were main town centre uses in an out-of-town location and therefore should be justified by a sequential test. It contended that the proposal would mainly serve local commuters and so divert trade away from the town centre.

However, an inspector held that there were specific locational requirements for the services that the appellant had demonstrated could not be met by sites closer to the town centre. He also reasoned that convenience shopping was more likely to be diverted from the large out-of-town supermarkets nearby and the proposal would therefore not result in significant harm to the vitality of the town centre.

On the issue of the effect on area character and appearance, the inspector decided that the development would be in keeping with the site’s urban-rural fringe location. The site was bounded by two major roads, close to other industrial and retail development and lay largely within the town’s planned development limits, he noted. Retention of trees and the provision of further planting in the form of an extensive landscaping scheme would help to retain the wooded character of the area, he added.

In refusing an application for costs by the appellant, the inspector acknowledged that the appeal site fell below the 2,500-square-metre floorspace threshold set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, triggering the need for a sequential test. However, he concluded that this did not mean a development could not theoretically have a significant adverse effect on town centre vitality and viability, ruling that the council had substantiated its retail impact reason for refusal.

Inspector: Paul Martinson; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-037-048

Waste development

The benefits of a proposed recycling facility in south London have been judged to outweigh the scheme’s impacts.

In a recovered appeal, the minister of state allowed the proposal for a metal-recycling facility, capable of processing 25,000 tonnes per annum, on the site of a former car-breaking yard in an urban area. In his report, an inspector noted that the appeal site benefitted from a certificate of lawful use as an outdoor car breaker’s yard and was in an untidy and poor state. He also noted that the former use had generated noise complaints from residents and had no planning controls.

The appellants stated that if the appeal was dismissed, the car-breaking use would be reinstated and intensified. However, given that this would involve works to the hardstanding that would require planning permission, the secretary of state gave no weight to this claimed fallback position.

The minister of state agreed with the inspector that the proposal accorded with the local plan overall, noting that the site was safeguarded for waste purposes and that recycling was one of the range of uses appropriate for key industrial areas.

Regarding the effect on the mixed residential and industrial character of the area and the living conditions of local residents, the minister of state found no harm even though HGV numbers would more than double. The impact on the amenity of pedestrians and cyclists, given the short distance and few occasions on when they would interact, would be limited, he ruled.

Weighing against this limited impact, the minister of state held that the contribution of metal recycling to the sustainable management of waste in the borough was a benefit of the proposal. He also found that the provision of compensatory waste capacity, removing a barrier to the implementation of a planning permission for housing on a waste transfer facility elsewhere in the borough, would help meet a need for additional housing. In his view, biodiversity net gain in the form of landscaping and a green roof on the main building would compensate for the unavoidable loss of part of a site of nature conservation importance, and he allowed the appeal.

Inspector: Richard Clegg; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-139