	Casebook
	Cases from this week's Casebook section of Planning magazine and PlanningResource. To download the full decision for any case, you will need to create an account on Compass Online.

OS FIELD 4700, INGS ROAD, LOWER DUNSFORTH, NORTH YORKSHIRE

Pontoons out of keeping with tranquil landscape The retention of moorings in the Yorkshire countryside to accommodate up to 12 boats on the river Ure was rejected because it had a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. A local plan policy stated that except in areas of concentration new recreational development along the river would be restricted to that connected with quiet informal uses. An inspector observed that the immediate area was quiet, being well away from any focus of significant activity. From the road the moorings were accessed through a farm gate and across an open field. He judged that boat users were likely to wish to avoid carrying supplies and equipment across the field on foot and were therefore likely to drive across the field, notwithstanding the lack of a track. The inspector held that the mooring of up to 12 boats and the comings and goings of boat users and their vehicles went well beyond what constituted a quiet informal use and was incompatible with the tranquil character of the area. He accepted that the sight of individual boats passing along or being informally moored might be fairly common on the stretch of river. However, he held it unlikely that users of a footpath along the river would expect to see substantial manmade structures spread along a significant length of river bank, a concentration of boats moored to them and potentially a number of vehicles parked in the field. He considered that the development had introduced unduly conspicuous and alien features, out of keeping with the character of the landscape.

55 MARINE DRIVE WEST, WEST WITTERING, WEST SUSSEX, PO20 8HH

Garage block dominance bad design The demolition of a dwelling to enable the erection of two semi-detached houses in West Sussex was held to be unacceptable because of the siting of a garage block. The council stated that the subdivision of the plot would be uncharacteristic of the area, with each new dwelling having a relatively narrow width compared to others in the locality. In addition, it asserted that the density of almost 36 dph would sit uncomfortably with the surrounding area and would generate significantly higher levels of activity. The inspector was unconvinced by these arguments. In his opinion, the dwellings in the area had different plot widths and garden sizes. Indeed, the irregularity in plot widths was an essential character of the area. The density would comply with national advice in PPS3 on housing and any increase in the intensity of activity would largely be unnoticeable, he opined. No precedent would be set if permission were granted, he concluded, since there were very few sites in the area which were comparable with the appeal property. However, this was not the end of the matter, he ruled. A linked pair of garages was proposed towards the front of the site and these would be viewed as a single building from the road. It would prevent public views of the lower part of the two houses and this would be uncharacteristic of the area. In his opinion, the resultant mass of built form would constitute an unduly obtrusive feature in the street scene. In this regard he rejected the appellant’s claim that they were similar in size to beach huts found further along the coast, concluding that the huts were relatively narrow structures which did not obscure other buildings.

KENSINGTON & CHELSEA

7 UPPER PHILLIMORE GARDENS LONDON W8 7HF

Porch would intrude on classical design A glazed canopy was rejected at a semi-detached house in west London because it would have an unsatisfactory relationship to the existing classical architecture of the building frontage and appear overly assertive in the street scene. It was proposed to erect the glass and steel canopy from the front door to the edge of the pavement. An inspector observed that there were other similar examples nearby but he found the evidence inconclusive as to whether they were original features. The council argued that irrespective of their age and origin the existing canopies demonstrated the damage that could be caused to a balanced and considered townscape by the introduction of inappropriate features. However, the inspector concluded that as the tradition of ornate glass entrance canopies in the area extended over a hundred years, whether original features or not they had become an established part of the street scene, as sporadic and individual features. He opined that if well conceived in relation to the design, scale and materials of the host building they could add interest and variety to the environment. The proposed canopy, however, would be longer than any other example locally. The inspector considered that it would appear as a strident and intrusive feature dominating the front elevation of the house, detracting from the balance and understated harmony of the pair of houses. Its size and extent of projection would also give it an assertive presence, obtruding into the flow of complementary building frontages along the road.

2A KINGSWOOD ROAD, PENGE, LONDON, SE20 7BN

Workshop loss unproven for courtyard scheme An inspector raised a number of concerns in considering a scheme for a three storey flat block on the site of a former sheet metal workshop in south east London, ruling that the case for the loss of the site had not been proven and the future living conditions would be unsatisfactory. The appellants accepted that the scheme proposed a minimal amount of on-site amenity space. However, this was justified because each of the flats would be small and generally unsuitable for families with young children. In addition, they asserted that the site lay within a short distance of public open space which would be much more attractive to young professional people who would be targeted as the primary occupiers. The inspector gave these arguments little weight. The ability to sit outside in a conveniently accessed private amenity area was, in his judgement, an important part of a decent living environment and an integral part of a well designed residential scheme. There was a limit to the extent to which public open space, however close and well provided with facilities, could compensate for an adequately designed and conveniently accessed, private open area and in this context there was no guarantee that families would not occupy the two bedroom flats. In relation to the proposed design he accepted that arranging the flats along three sides of an open courtyard was an attractive concept. However, due to the limited size of the site there were serious implications for the living conditions of future occupiers, he ruled. Some of the facing elevations would in some case be between four and eight metres and to limit overlooking residents would have to continually close their curtains or blinds to prevent direct line of sight views into bedroom and living rooms, he decided. Whatever mitigation measures were involved, the residents would experience unacceptable living conditions, he decided. With regard to the loss of the site from employment the inspector noted that the appellants had only instructed a single agent to market the site. Marketing began in early 2006 and little interest was reported, he recorded. Some enquiries related to the use of the site as a church or for motor related activities and the agent rejected these as being inappropriate to the area. The inspector decided, however, that instructing a single agent did not constitute full and proper marketing of the site and accordingly he was not convinced that residential re-use was justified.

LAND AT WILLINGHURST ESTATE, GUILDFORD ROAD, SHAMLEY GREEN GU5 0SU

Clay pigeon traps harm beautiful area The retention of equipment used in connection with clay pigeon shooting on an estate in the Surrey Hills AONB and green belt was judged to be objectionable by an inspector because of the adverse impact it would have on the scenic quality of the area. The appeal site formed part of the estate which was used for a variety of sporting purposes. Clay pigeon shooting operated for 28 days per year under permitted development rights and the appellants stated that this required all the equipment including the shooting stands to be removed at the end of each shoot. The inspector toured the shooting area and noted that in addition to the stands the appellants also wished to retain the trap equipment, portable toilets and hospitality tents. While the shooting stands had no discernible impact on the landscape, the other items added commercial paraphernalia which intruded into an otherwise serene and attractive area of wooded countryside. They appeared incongruous and although not readily seen from public viewpoints, this did not justify their retention, he decided, particularly since they also undermined the openness of the area.

LAND AT THE BILLIARD HOUSE, ROUSDEN, DEVON

Setting of listed building from fences paramount An inspector decided that an appellant’s argument regarding the safety of children living in a grade II* listed building in Devon was not outweighed by the need to ensure that the setting of the historic property was maintained. The appellant had erected a wrought iron boundary fence and gate which was subject to enforcement action. The council stated that in granting permission for the conversion of the building into a dwelling, certain permitted development rights had been removed. It argued that English Heritage had been particularly anxious to ensure that the grounds surrounding the property, which were also registered as historic parkland, were protected from inappropriate development particularly the planting of hedges or erection of fences, which would erode its open character. A landscape management plan was approved which showed the area subject to enforcement action as being open from structures and other objects, it asserted. The inspector noted that the property lay close to a pond and the appellant was particularly anxious to ensure that children did not have access to the water. However, the appellant did not own the pond and could not ensure that unrestricted access to the water was prevented. Therefore the wrought iron fence would not provide the total security required, he opined. In deciding to dismiss the appeal the inspector noted that an earlier appeal had also been unsuccessful. The previous inspector had concluded that the fence compromised the open nature of the setting of the building and obstructed views of a terrace, he noted. In his opinion, there were strong reasons to require the removal of the fence in order to restore the parkland setting of the property.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

198 SPEEDWELL ROAD, HAY MILLS, BIRMINGHAM, B25 8HH

Dust claims by fire station overruled An inspector decided to modify various conditions imposed on a waste management site licence issued in relation to a waste transfer depot in the West Midlands, concluding that an objection from the fire brigade did not justify rejecting the appeal. The appellants wished to increase the waste processing capacity from 75,000 tonnes per annum to 120,000 tonnes. The West Midlands fire service objected on the grounds that the existing site generated a significant quantity of dust. The latter adversely affected staff and equipment at a nearby fire station, it claimed. The Environment Agency, in initially rejecting the scheme because of this objection, stated that no direct link between the site and health and amenity problems at the fire station could be established. It stated that the recorded problems of dust amounted to a local amenity issue and had not resulted in pollution of the environment. The inspector noted that since April 2008 the appellants had installed a new dust suppression sprinkler system and new fencing, and dust levels experienced at the fire station had been markedly reduced. Given the proposed changes to the adopted site working plan the inspector held that increasing the throughput of waste would not give rise to serious harm to the environment or public health. In so finding he also allowed an extension of the operating hours.

LAND OPPOSITE 14-28 LABURNUM DRIVE , SOMERTON, NEWPORT

Dominance of one bedroom flat claim unproven In allowing a scheme involving the erection of 20 one bedroom flats in south Wales, an inspector decided that the council had failed to substantiate its objections. The council, in addition to objecting to the proposed design, alleged that there were too many one-bedroom flats in the area. It stated that such accommodation was not needed. Rather, two bedroom accommodation was required to meet the needs of larger households. The inspector noted that the building would have a flat roof set behind a parapet. It would have rendered walls with much of the first and second floors having inset wooden panelling. The latter would act as a temperature control providing shade for the walls behind it and insulating the building from excessive heat gain in the summer and excessive loss in the winter. It would also have a striking visual impact, he decided, such that overall a strikingly modern design was acceptable in a street of traditional houses. With regard to the claim that the area was already swamped by one bedroom flats, the inspector decided that the council had failed to provide any statistical evidence to support this contention. In his opinion, the council had acted unreasonably in refusing permission contrary to the advice of its planning officer. The minutes of the planning committee meeting clearly showed that it was rejected because certain councillors raised concern over the design and the concentration of one bedroom flats, the latter generated in part by a consultation response from the council’s housing department. Little evidence to support these arguments had been provided and accordingly a full award of costs in favour of the appellants was justified, he held.

LAND AT STEWARD WOOD, MORETONHAMPSTEAD, DEVON TQ13 8SD

Permaculture project allowed in national park An inspector allowed a community living in a Dartmoor wood to remain on the site for a further five years, finding that it was an education resource of significant benefit. Planning permission had been granted at appeal in 2002 for five years and an application for a further five years was rejected by the national park authority in 2007. Enforcement notices were then issued in 2008. The inspector observed that the structures and uses on the site fell into two categories. The first was associated with the residential use of the land. This included the residential units themselves and communal facilities such as compost toilets, a boathouse, cycle shelter and longhouse. The second included those not associated with forestry or agriculture but which fell under the heading of education. This included a forest school and the provision of temporary accommodation and camping areas for people visiting the site. The inspector held that the individual elements of the project were not innovative in themselves. The renewable energy systems were well known and the building techniques had been demonstrated elsewhere. A number of other groups were applying an interpretation of the permaculture concept and some of these were in a woodland setting. However, he took the view that the value of the project was in its holistic nature. He heard from the permaculture association that the community was one of the best developed and most cohesive and that a number of lessons were being learned about how it might be possible to live in and from a wood. Furthermore, an independent assessment of the carbon footprint of the community residents showed it to be about a third of the UK average. In addition, he saw that the sites of two dwellings which had been removed were regenerating well. He opined that within a short period of the site being vacated there would be little if any evidence that the settlement had ever been there. The inspector believed that the harm to the character and appearance of the national park would not be permanent and were outweighed by the benefits of the sustainable development project continuing for a further period.

NEWARK & SHERWOOD

LAND OFF MILLGATE, NEWARK

Housing land supply shortfall supports new build Planning permission, listed building and conservation area consents were issued in respect of a development of 69 dwellings alongside the River Trent in Nottinghamshire due in part to the lack of a five year supply of housing land. The site lay south of a town centre. The northern part was occupied by a grade II listed dwelling which also contained a small boathouse. The central part was occupied by British Waterways (BW) as a yard containing relatively modern industrial type buildings behind a row of semi-detached houses. The southern part was used by BW for the loading and unloading of waterways material. The inspector noted that the scheme involved constructing a terrace of riverside houses on the yard with the land to the south becoming open space. Although the council originally objected on the grounds that there was no need for additional housing land, the recently adopted RSS allocated a significant increase in the number of new houses required to be built and this generated a shortfall of 770 dwellings over the following five year period. In his opinion, there was no objection in principle to the redevelopment of the site and the absence of a five year supply of housing supported the grant of permission. Although the scheme involved the demolition of approximately 20 metres of boundary wall associated with the dwelling, the wall was relatively low and contributed little to the setting of the listed building. Truncating the garden to enable the new dwellings to be built would not harm its historic setting, he decided, and the terrace dwellings would be built of local materials thereby maintaining the character of the area with a few key points marked by four storey landmark buildings. In allowing the appeal the inspector made a partial award of costs in favour of the appellants. The council had failed to notify the appellants until the exchange of statements that it would no longer be contesting its objection on land supply grounds. This had resulted in wasted expense by the appellants who had had to research the background to this objection and provide evidence to rebut it.

EAST NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

CHELVESTON RENEWABLE ENERGY PARK, THE AIRFIELD, CHELVESTON, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

Energy park at airfield supported An inspector, in allowing an appeal involving the use of a former airfield in Northamptonshire as a renewable energy park, accepted that it would meet broader planning objectives. The appellants had already secured planning permission for the development of a bio-mass power plant which would be capable of processing 48,000 tonnes of waste per annum, producing 12,000MW of electricity. Waste oils and oils produced from crops would be burned in the plant and in order to transfer the electricity to the national grid, a switch room needed to be provided so that variations in the voltage could be controlled. The appellants, therefore, proposed to convert a former building dating to the beginning of world war two which had more recently been used as a cattle shed. The council opposed the change of use arguing that it seemed unlikely that the building was capable of accommodating an electricity transformer without having to remove part of the roof. It asserted that the appellants had not demonstrated that the building was capable of re-use without extensive alteration and reconstruction. The inspector agreed that the building had a utilitarian appearance. However, a degree of pragmatism was required, he opined, noting that the re-use of existing buildings in the countryside was preferable to erecting new ones. It did show signs of wear and tear but the structural surveys submitted by the appellant and the council indicated that it was capable of economic re-use. The scheme would enable the appellants’ aspirations to develop the wider airfield as a renewable energy park which might ultimately lead to the submission of a planning application for wind turbines, he concluded. Although much of the airfield involved greenfield land this did not prevent the development from proceeding, he decided, given that the impact on the landscape would be minimal. The fuel for the bio-mass power plant could be sourced locally and the benefits associated with combating climate change and increasing electricity production from renewable supplies was fully in accordance with national advice, he held.

BRIT OVAL, KENNINGTON OVAL, LONDON

Oval cricket ground test status risk alleged The secretary of state, following call-in, granted permission for a major scheme of redevelopment at the Oval cricket ground in south-east London after concluding that there was a proven need. The proposal involved the provision of 1,830 additional seats through the demolition of three existing stands. A six level grandstand would be erected together with a five storey hotel containing 168 bedrooms. The two buildings would consist of two wings forming a ‘Y’ shape linked by a glazed atrium. The appellants argued that the site occupied a highly sustainable location and the ground formed a very historic and prestigious cricket ground hosting many national and international cricket matches. In order to maintain the grounds ‘test match’ status it was necessary for improvements in the quality of the seating and accommodation to be provided, not least because the demand for tickets to internal matches exceeded supply. The Health and Safety Executive argued that the scheme was unacceptable due to the potential risk associated with the site’s proximity to the Kennington gas holder station. The HSE asserted that new development would be introduced in an area where there was significant risk to life and property should an incident at the gas holder occur. The secretary of state decided, however, that the level of risk associated with introducing additional spectators was low and there was a material need for the proposed development to meet the aspirations of the appellants and of cricket in its widest sense. It would also deliver economic benefits to the borough and to London and these outweighed the limited degree to which the scheme did not comply with development plan policies.

LAND TO THE EAST OF KING WILLIAM IV PUBLIC HOUSE, LORD STREET, HODDESDON, HERTFORDSHIRE EN11 8NQ

Financial support for pub fails to secure dwelling An inspector has refused outline permission for a new house next to a listed pub in Hertfordshire because it would harm its character and setting. The inspector considered that the setting of the listed building, which included generally open areas on both sides, added significantly to its character and importance in the street scene. Although the dwelling would be lower in height than the pub and set back from it the inspector held that it would reduce the quality of its open setting. The appellant suggested that the development was required in order to fund improvements and provide a cash injection as the pub, like many others, was suffering financially. However, no evidence was adduced regarding its financial position nor any mechanism provided to ensure that any benefits resulting from the permission would result in beneficial investments in the property or the business. In any event, the inspector pointed out, any enabling development should not impact adversely on the character of the listed building.

MOUNT HAVEN HOTEL, TURNPIKE ROAD, MARAZION, CORNWALL TR17 0DQ

Flat roofed hotel extension view obstruction examined An extension to a 19 bedroom hotel overlooking Penzance was approved despite the council’s concern about its impact on local views. The existing hotel was originally a two storey coach house associated with a pair of mid 19th century houses. It had been significantly altered and extended to its current form which comprised a three storey building with a flat roof. The appellant proposed to add a fourth floor, also with a flat roof, to create a new restaurant and bar and two new bedrooms. New balconies would be added on the middle and upper floors and an additional single storey building for staff or guests. The inspector decided that although the extension would partially block views across the bay from a neighbouring property, the planning system did not operate to protect private interests. The scheme would not lead to any direct overlooking of other properties and the scheme would enhance rather than detract from the character and appearance of the area.

34 GROVEWAY, LONDON SW9 0AR

Replica villa window arrangement false A scheme involving the construction of a five storey replica villa on a bomb damaged site in a south west London conservation failed with an inspector remarking on the inappropriate nature of the rear elevation. Conservation area and listed building consent were also denied. The site had originally contained a pair of semi-detached 19th century villas which were destroyed during the second world war. In the 1960s a two storey detached dwellinghouse was erected and the appellant proposed its demolition to construct a villa replicating the 19th century origins and design of those immediately adjacent to the site, both of which were grade II listed. The building would accommodate five flats, he stated. The inspector agreed that when seen from the front the replacement structure would respond to the character of the locality. However, at the rear the new building would accommodate three window bays compared with the original two resulting in a higher than usual window to wall ratio and a historically inaccurate pattern of fenestration. The windows at second floor level would be positioned too low to accurately reflect the early 19th century origins of the design. In addition, the inspector expressed his concern about the poorly positioned two storey rear addition. This would project from the rear façade by over three metres and while extensions were not uncommon on buildings dating from this period, they were typically only one window bay in width. In contrast the proposed extension was double this width and the dominance of the two bay windows and glazing added an inelegant form to the overall composition, he opined.

TELFORD & WREKIN

139 CRESCENT ROAD, HADLEY, TELFORD TF1 5LE

After school club undermines local amenity The change of use of a dwelling in Shropshire to an after-school club was denied planning permission because it undermined the amenity of local residents. The appeal premises comprised a modest semi-detached house within a predominantly residential area. The building was being refurbished and the appellants stated that it was their intention to resume teaching between 4.30pm and 6pm during school terms in three teaching rooms on the ground and first floors. Up to 70 students would be accommodated, they claimed, but this could be limited to 40 if necessary. An inspector noted that one of the next door neighbours did not object to the development. However, another resident expressed concern about difficulties in parking on the street and from noise and disturbance. In her opinion, even well behaved children would congregate and chatter when entering and leaving the premises such that significant activity would occur in front of residential properties. In her view, it was not a small scale activity and not one which was acceptable in a residential area.

CLACKMANNANSHIRE

CAMPBELL HOUSE YARD, ALVA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE ROAD, ALVA FK12 5DQ

Hot food trailer undermines safety A reporter refused to renew planning permission for the siting of a hot food trailer near a school in Clackmannanshire after concluding that it could undermine highway and pedestrian safety. The reporter noted that the trailer was sited on a grass verge near to the entrance to an industrial estate. Although the appellant wished to continue serving workers on the estate it was necessary to ensure that pupils attending a nearby school were not attracted to it during lunchtime, he opined. The trailer was sited on the opposite side of the road and pupils would have to cross it in order to purchase hot food items. Its location could become an attraction for pupils given its conspicuous location facing towards the school’s access road, he concluded, and in his view a site within the industrial estate would be preferable to avoid potential pedestrian and vehicular conflicts.

DAVIES WOODYARD (SAWMILLS), 321 ALCESTER ROAD, WYTHALL, BIRMINGHAM, WORCESTERSHIRE

Waste wood incineration judged unsustainable The retention of an incinerator for the burning of waste wood at a sawmill in the Worcestershire green belt was rejected because disposal by means of re-use or recycling had not been considered. The incinerator was of metal construction with a flue which extended above the eaves level of the main mill building. It was sited not far from the flank wall of the mill, through which there were two pipes. This enabled hot air to be transferred into the building when heating was needed, or discharged into the atmosphere in summer. An inspector regarded the incinerator as a manmade above ground structure and as such she ruled that it came within the definition of a building. It was inappropriate development which harmed the openness of the green belt, she decided. The appellant argued that the incinerator enabled timber waste materials to be disposed of on site in an environmentally friendly and efficient way instead of being sent to landfill via a waste carrier, so reducing the firm’s carbon footprint and saving money. In addition, the heat produced could be used to warm the mill, which cut the business’s running costs. The inspector saw that the incinerator was being used to burn wood offcuts, pallets and other waste timber materials. She accepted that this would significantly reduce the number of skip loads of waste material to be disposed of off-site and appreciated the financial savings to the business. The inspector pointed out, however, that PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management sought to encourage more sustainable waste management, moving the management of waste up the waste hierarchy of reduction, re-use, recycling and composting, using waste as a source of energy and only disposing as a last resort. The appellant had not indicated that any other alternatives to burning waste wood had been considered, such as being sold for use in wood burning stoves or turned into bark chippings. Consequently, the inspector was not convinced that the timber waste could not be disposed of in a more sustainable way that would also bring in financial remuneration and which would not harm the openness of the green belt.

LAND OFF BANK DALE, DENBY DALE, HUDDERSFIELD

Footpath condition judged unreasonable In allowing an appeal involving a disputed footpath condition imposed on two developments involving the erection of 17 dwellings in West Yorkshire an inspector decided that it was unreasonable. The condition stated that no dwelling should be occupied until a footpath had been completed and adopted between two points as specified on an approved plan. The inspector decided that while it would be possible for the appellants to build the footpath the adoption of the route lay outside their control and was dependent upon the highway authority. This was an unreasonable requirement because it would depend upon the action and agreement of a third party which was unacceptable. In addition, the route between the two points could be achieved using other pedestrian linkages, he noted, such that the requirement to build the link was unnecessary. In allowing the appeal the inspector placed weight on a unilateral undertaking submitted by the appellants. This required them to bridge a gap in part of an existing footpath along one of the roads leading to the site. In his opinion, this would provide a very significant benefit to the safety, amenity and convenience for all pedestrians.

MACKLEY FARM, STONE-IN-OXLEY, TENTERDEN, KENT TN30 7JX

Polytunnels rejected on visual harm The retention of two polytunnels on a farm in Kent was rejected because there was insufficient agricultural need to outweigh the harm to the area of outstanding natural beauty and the surrounding countryside. The polytunnels would be used to extend the growing season for fruit and vegetables. An inspector observed that they were extremely prominent and intrusive features in the landscape adding clutter to a group of scattered dwellings visible on a hill. Their size and shape were emphasised by white coloured roofing material. The appellant wished to grow fruit and vegetables for personal consumption to pursue a self-supporting lifestyle with excess produce being sold at the farm gate. The inspector acknowledged that the polytunnels had been sited to provide the best protection from prevailing winds, maximise sun exposure and enable rainwater to be harvested from the house. However, she reasoned that no compelling evidence had been put forward regarding the necessity of the polytunnels in relation to the enterprise, or the lack of suitable alternative sites elsewhere on the holding. Whilst mindful of the need to balance the protection of the countryside with the importance of a thriving rural economy, in line with PPS7, she was unconvinced that the harm to the AONB and the surrounding countryside was outweighed by agricultural need.

HELENSBURGH CRICKET AND RUGBY FOOTBALL CLUB, RHU ROAD HIGHER, ARDENCAPLE, HELENSBURGH, E84 8JZ

Landscaping scheme required in green belt An appeal lodged by a cricket and rugby club in Argyllshire involving the removal of a condition requiring the submission of a landscaping scheme foundered after a reporter decided that it was necessary to screen a new spectator stand. The appeal site comprised one of a number of playing fields in the green belt and the council had granted permission for a spectator stand to replace a structure built of scaffold poles. The council accepted that the stand involved an appropriate form of development but insisted that a landscaping scheme be provided in order to mitigate the visual impact of the development. The reporter decided that the new stand would be a large, angular structure which would dominate views from a nearby road. In his opinion, the condition was precisely worded and fully justified. Although it would not be realistic to assume that such a large structure could be totally concealed, it was necessary to soften the appearance and setting of the new building in the landscape, he determined.

EAST HERTFORDSHIRE

PLASHES FARM, GORE LANE, COLLIERS END, HERTFORDSHIRE SG11 1ES

Hedging inadequate to hide vehicles The parking of commercial vehicles at a Hertfordshire farm was refused because they could not be adequately screened from view. An inspector noted that the site was accessed via a long private drive across agricultural land. Vehicles traversing the route would be visible from a main road, she noted. In addition, the hardstanding area to be used for parking the vehicles, while partly screened by woodland and a barn, would be seen from a bridleway such that their presence would undermine the character and appearance of the area. This harm was compounded, she concluded, by the presence of the grade II* listed barn whose setting would be compromised by the parking of up to 10 vehicles whose form, size and colourful exteriors would detract from the pastoral scene within which the barn lay.