	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.

WOOD FARM, WOOD LANE, STANMORE

The secretary of state decided not to accept the recommendations of one of his inspectors and granted planning permission for the development of 10 houses in the metropolitan green belt after deciding that the creation of a large area of public open space in the form of a country park should be given significant weight. In addition to lying within the green belt the site also lay within a conservation area and area of nature conservation importance within an ancient woodland adjoining one of the boundaries. Part of the site contained farm buildings and a dairy and the applicants proposed to build housing on approximately one hectare of the site following the demolition of the existing buildings with the remaining 24 hectares laid out in the form of a country park and transferred to the council. The latter were enthusiastic supporters of the scheme arguing that it would increase an existing country park by approximately 70 per cent. It claimed that while the housing did involve an inappropriate form of development very special circumstances existed to justify granting permission. The secretary of state generally agreed with the majority of his inspector’s conclusions. However, he gave more weight to the benefits associated with increasing the proportion of publicly accessible open space. In addition, it would improve wildlife habitats and ensure that the majority of the site was properly managed in the longer term. Therefore, whilst the decision was finely balanced given the impact on green belt objectives, permission was justified on the basis of the very special circumstances demonstrated by the applicants.

1, 2 & 3 THE GARDENS, CRESSWELL, MORPETH, NORTHUMBERLAND NE61

The erection of a bunkhouse and leisure accommodation in the Northumberland countryside which two appellants claimed would support local tourism, was held to be unacceptable because it did not relate well to existing accommodation. The appeal site comprised parts of three gardens and the appellants proposed to erect a building approximately 36 metres long and 13 metres wide which would accommodate a warden and 28 bed spaces together with cooking and bathing facilities. They stated that the accommodation would be aimed at the budget end of the market particularly cyclists travelling up and down the coast. An inspector noted a local plan policy which expressed support in principle for new self-catering accommodation provided it did not adversely affect the landscape and was well related to existing development. The adjacent village had a well defined form she noted and the proposed building would appear as a significant incursion into open land being seen against the backdrop to the village as opposed to being a part of it she opined. While the design was inoffensive the building being sited on rising land would exacerbate its harmful visual impact she determined and the need to provide additional tourist accommodation did not outweigh this primary finding.

LAND AT SILVERGATES, 52 THE DRIVE, CRAIGWEIL-ON-SEA, BOGNOR REGIS, WEST SUSSEX

An inspector upheld an enforcement notice requiring the removal of an acoustic barrier at a house in a West Sussex conservation area after deciding that it had a visually oppressive impact on adjoining residents’ outlook. The barrier was more than 13m long and 4m high and was sited about 3m from one of two main windows of an adjacent flat. The inspector noted that it dominated the occupants’ outlook, blocking off 75 per cent of the available vista. While recognising that residents of the flat were not entitled to a view, he held that the manmade structure had severely compromised their outlook and undermined their visual amenity. Neither painting nor landscaping would alleviate this impact, he decided, which was compounded by loss of sunlight and daylight in the mornings. The inspector observed that the boarding was inherently unattractive but that planting had already gone some way to addressing its limited visual impact. He therefore found that it did, at a minimum, preserve the conservation area. A local resident acknowledged the efforts the appellant had been to in order to resolve the problem of peafowl calling noise from an enclosure at his property, including taking the birds in and out in shifts during the day. The appellant claimed that the barrier satisfied world health organisation standards. However, the inspector found that he had simply provided no evidence to show that these standards were met. He therefore found no overriding justification for the barrier.

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

LAND AT WADLOW FARM, WEST WRATTING, CAMBRIDGESHIRE

An inspector’s recommendation to allow an appeal involving 13 wind turbines in Cambridgeshire was accepted by the secretary of state who agreed that the visibility of the turbines from houses, villages and cultural assets was not sufficient justification to reject the scheme unless there was clear evidence of harm. The 367ha site comprised part of a farm set in the countryside approximately halfway between Cambridge and Newmarket. Each turbine would have a maximum height to blade tip of 120 metres and the scheme would have an installed generating capacity of 30MW. The appellant argued that the region was falling a long way short of the target of installing 820MW of renewable energy capacity by 2010 which would rise to 1,620MW by 2020. The inspector agreed that the region was failing to meet the targets. The council had to date not granted permission for any sizeable renewable energy project in its area. Be that as it may the inspector noted that despite the urgent need to address climate change, national planning policy guidance did not seek to dilute the importance of maintaining adequate environmental, economic and social safeguards where a target was unlikely to be met, he opined. The scheme should therefore be assessed on the basis of the capacity of the area to accommodate the proposed development and not on the basis of an impending shortfall in electricity supplied from a renewable source he decided. In assessing the landscape impact he concluded overall that the area was capable of accommodating the proposed development. It would have two adverse impacts on the setting of a grade II listed building and a scheduled ancient monument (SAM). However in relation to the listed building its setting was already compromised by large modern farm buildings he determined and in respect of the SAM the turbines would be a further example of how the landscape changed over time. Given the benefits of the scheme the balance lay in allowing the appeal he concluded.

TWIN OAKS FARM, SUMMERSWOOD LANE, RIDGE

A scheme advanced by the owner of a field in the Hertfordshire green belt which was intended to restore the agricultural productivity of the site, was rejected on a various ground including its harmful visual impact and flood risk. The appellant stated that the site had been illegally tipped with waste and this had become overgrown rendering agricultural use impractical. He proposed to remove the illegal waste and import soil to a depth of two metres which would enable beneficial use to be resumed. While this would involve raising the profile of the site the visual impact would not be unacceptable he opined. The inspector agreed that the existing site was over-grown. However it was not visually intrusive she concluded. In contrast the proposal would raise the level of the land to an unacceptable degree and considerably above that of an adjoining road and fields. It would reduce the openness of the green belt and adversely affect the setting of a conservation area she decided noting that the appellant had failed to provide a clear justification for the amount of soil which was proposed to be imported. In her opinion there was a lack of information on the final standard of restoration and aftercare concluding that importing too much material or the wrong type of soil could ultimately result in poorer quality agricultural land. She also noted that the Environment Agency objected to the scheme on the grounds that the appellant had not demonstrated that the flood risks resulting from surface water run off could be managed safely. It might also lead to the pollution of a nearby brook the inspector noted if the existing waste was not removed carefully and the precise nature of the imported material not known. Since the appellant had not submitted details of how the run off could be controlled through bunds and a balancing pond, this also counted against the scheme she decided.

MILLENNIUM COURT, 2A NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE, READING RG2 7PN

Fourteen student bedsits were allowed in Reading, an inspector deciding that contributions to transport, recreation and leisure facilities should be waived in order to meet housing need. The appellant argued that the council had never demonstrated that there was a need for the financial contributions it had requested. The inspector held that this missed the essential purpose of planning obligations which was to facilitate payments to mitigate a development’s impact, not to secure improvements. However, he remarked that circular 05/2005 made clear that such obligations were to be reasonable in all other respects, making provision in paragraph B10 for circumstances where the development could not meet all the requirements and still be viable. It was apparent to the inspector that at best the development was likely to be only narrowly viable, with profitability at around 11 per cent. With the contributions sought, this would be reduced to 4.5 per cent. It seemed to the inspector that the development was consistent with the government’s commitment to improving the affordability and supply of housing in all communities, and to the provision of housing that contributed to the creation and maintenance of sustainable communities. The scheme would provide accommodation for students close to the university campus, encouraging sustainable travel modes, and freeing up existing rented housing stock. The inspector accepted that the waiving of contributions would represent a cost to the council. He decided, however, that the cost was outweighed by the considerable benefits that the development would bring in terms of meeting housing demand.

SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE

PINE TREES, KEEPERS LANE, CODSALL, STAFFORDSHIRE WV8 1QJ

A 41 per cent larger replacement dwelling in the Staffordshire green belt was allowed, an inspector accepting that permitted development rights could see it extended to double its size. The proposed dwelling would be some 900 cubic metres in volume. The total volume of the existing dwelling and a garage was 640 cubic metres. The proposed dwelling would therefore be 260 cubic metres, or 41 per cent, larger than that which would be replaced. On this basis the inspector decided that the proposal was inappropriate development in the green belt. He observed, however, that the replacement dwelling would be more compact than the two buildings to be demolished such that the impact on openness would be only moderate. There would also be no apparent encroachment into the countryside and he considered that the proposal would therefore not directly undermine the purposes of including the land in the green belt. He also considered that the design of the proposal would not be incongruous in its treed setting or harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The appellant stated that if the appeal were dismissed he would renovate the existing house but would alter and enlarge it. The inspector calculated that if permitted development rights were applied this could result in an increase in volume of about 512 cubic metres, or 98 per cent. In effect the house could be doubled in size, and in addition there would be no need to demolish the garage. He found that the result would be a significant increase in built form and a consequent reduction in openness that would be substantially worse than the proposed replacement dwelling. The inspector reasoned that openness would be less seriously affected by the appeal scheme than the fallback option. He concluded that very special circumstances existed which justified permitting inappropriate development.

LAND AT CROSS STREET, BEDFORD

A terrace of nine dwellings was rejected in a Bedford conservation area after an inspector expressed concern about the effect of the design on the local context and the choice of materials. The inspector accepted that, in principle, a design which was entirely modern was acceptable. However, he found that the roof form with dormers at two different levels would take the appearance of the building beyond being lively to appearing disruptive in the street scene and somewhat disconcerting. He considered that metal roofing would be acceptable. However, he was less convinced about the use of larch as a facing material throughout the development, observing that red brick was used on all buildings in the immediate vicinity. He found that the steel roof and timber walls would result in the building being predominantly grey and held that this would appear out of place. He decided that the prominent location of the site at a busy road junction was not the place to introduce a radical addition to the existing palette of materials. He also found that the distinctive building would obscure the few clear echoes of design features of other nearby buildings. The inspector decided that the design as a whole would not integrate with neighbouring buildings. He concluded that it would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

47 THE PARADE WALTON ON THE NAZE, ESSEX CO14 8AS

The erection of 11 apartments in a town lying on the Essex coast was approved despite strong reservations regarding its impact on the character of a conservation area. The council had granted planning permission for the erection of 10 flats within a four storey building designed with a traditional pitched roof and gables and dormer windows. However this scheme could not be implemented because the site area was smaller than that shown on the approved plans. As an alternative the appellant proposed to erect a three storey building in a contemporary style with curved roofs constructed of aluminium and balconied areas. An inspector noted that the appeal site was prominent when viewed from certain directions. National advice in PPG15 on the historic environment stated that gap sites should be the stimulus for imaginative and high quality design. New designs did not need to imitate existing styles she concluded and in her opinion the proposed scheme adopted a “playful” approach to the site’s redevelopment, respecting the bulk and scale of existing development while introducing a 21st century building along the seafront.

BASINGSTOKE & DEANE

12, 14, 16 & 20 SHYSHACK LANE, BAUGHURST, TADLEY RG26 5NH

An inspector decided that a precautionary approach should be adopted to allowing additional housing within an emergency planning zone surrounding the Aldernaston atomic weapons establishment in Hampshire due to the potential health risk. The health and safety executive and nuclear inspectorate stated that the appeal site lay within a three kilometre diameter zone which was intended to minimise the risk to local residents in the event of a release of radioactive material in the event of an incident at the plant. They were concerned that the population levels within the zone had steadily increased since its designation in 1997 and had reached a level where further population increases was inappropriate. An inspector noted that the safeguarding zone did not appear to be reflected in the council’s local plan which in general terms did not seek to preclude additional housing in the area. The scheme would potentially lead to a net increase of 18 people after the demolition of the existing house on the site and such an addition, while small, would cumulatively lead to significant increases in the resident population thereby further undermining the effectiveness of the zone and increasing the potential health and safety risks, she concluded. In addition the inspector expressed concerns about the design of the scheme which involved developing two semi-detached houses at the front and seven houses to the rear. She decided that the scheme lacked distinctive variation in the design and appearance of individual units giving the layout a regimented and cramped appearance. The hardstanding areas at the front of each property which would be used for refuse collection would give rise to an unattractive proliferation of refuse bins she opined which would also undermine the street scene.

12 ST PETERS AVENUE, MOULTON, NEWMARKET, SUFFOLK CB8 8SE

The owner of a children’s day nursery in Suffolk overturned an enforcement notice requiring the use to cease but failed to secure the business to operate in the early hours of the morning. The appellant explained that up to 10 children could be accommodated in the premises which comprised a small bungalow. The first children started arriving at 5.15am and all were collected by 6pm in the evening. She stated that many parents were employed in and around Newmarket as part of the very extensive horse breeding and training businesses. This often required people to be at work early in the morning to look after horses and undertake other tasks and this meant that the business offered scope for such parents to drop their children off very early before going to work. The inspector in deciding that there clearly had been a material change of use due to the number of children accommodated and the activity generated early in the mornings, also accepted that the need to support the racing industry was an important material consideration. However the activity associated with children being dropped off had undermined the amenity of some local residents and according while the appellant would prefer an opening time of 5.15am, this was too early he decided. Rather a 6.30am start would achieve an acceptable balance between the needs of the business and the amenity of neighbours he decided also imposing a further condition limiting the total number of children to 10.

KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES

TOLWORTH COURT SPORTS GROUND, OLD KINGSTON ROAD, WORCESTER PARK KT4 7QH

A south London university was successful in gaining permission for two temporary emergency teaching blocks on metropolitan open land (MOL) after an inspector was convinced of their need. The buildings would be sited in the corner of a sports ground and would offer internally flexible teaching accommodation for up to 200 students and staff. Whilst there was no statutory requirement to make provision for such accommodation, the university said that it had a duty of prudence and care to make it in the event of an emergency which would make other existing facilities at its main teaching locations unusable. An emergency might involve fire, flood, criminal or terrorist action, and was by its nature unpredictable as to location, timing, scale and effect. If no such emergency were to occur the development would not be implemented. If it was required, the accommodation was capable of being put on site and in use within a matter of a few weeks and would not be kept on site for more than six months, during which time alternative accommodation would be provided or reinstated. The inspector held that the development was inappropriate in the MOL. However, he observed that the visual impact of the buildings when seen from surrounding areas would be limited and he acknowledged that they would not be permanent. He found that harm to the openness and purposes of the MOL would be slight. The inspector accepted that the development was needed for the proper and efficient functioning of a regionally important institution of learning. He concluded that the combination of need for the emergency accommodation and a lack of suitable alternative sites amounted to very special circumstances which outweighed the relatively limited harm.

WITHGILL FARM, MITTON, CLITHEROE BB7 3LW

A farm company in Lancashire failed to secure permission for two agricultural workers dwellings despite its claim that the 2,000 cattle on the land required additional supervision. The farm was managed on a day to day basis by a manager who also acted as a herdsman supported by second skilled dairyman. The majority of the routine tasks were undertaken by a labour force of unskilled farm workers. The two herdsmen occupied two existing dwellings while a dormitory complex provided accommodation for the remainder of the workforce. The appellants claimed that the herdsmen worked long hours each day often leading to a working week of between 90 and 100 hours. They claimed that two additional herdsmen were required which justified the two additional dwellings. The inspector decided that while some additional skilled labour was required, much of the need related to sharing the burden of out-of-hours working and cover while the existing herdsmen took holidays or were sick. Accordingly there was little need for the two additional workers to be permanently resident on site and little examination had been made of the potential to buy or rent dwellings in nearby settlements. An additional concern he concluded was the proposed size of dwellings noting that one of them would contain seven bedrooms and the scale of such accommodation was unjustified he held.

ARUNDEL GREAT COURT, 176/182 STRAND AND 1/10 SURREY STREET, LONDON

An inspector praised a property development company for appointing two architects to work together in designing a mixed use scheme in a central London conservation area after concluding that they were clearly at the top of their profession. The site had two main frontages and contained an unattractive building erected in the 1970’s which would be demolished to enable the provision of new offices, a hotel, 151 dwellings and a mixture of retail and commercial uses on the ground floor. The uses would be accommodated in two main buildings each designed by one of the architectural practices within an overall masterplan. Despite the high quality design the council claimed that the development would adversely affect views of Westminster Bridge and the setting of St Paul’s Cathedral. The inspector decided that the use of two architects had had a beneficial effect by creating a design which reduced the impact of the overly large scale city block. The architects were highly regarded and had brought a high level of analysis, design and execution to their buildings he opined. The result would be a development which would enhance the character of the conservation area and while it would be seen in some views with the cathedral, these would be limited and not harmful he decided.

255-257 WIMBLEDON PARK ROAD, LONDON, SW19 6NW

A poster hoarding in south London to advertise tennis goods and services was rejected after an inspector found that it would be an incongruous, over-dominant and obtrusive element in the street scene. It was proposed to attach the hoarding to a chimney stack so as to be visible above the flat roof of an adjoining parade of single storey shop units. The inspector considered that its elevated position would render it unduly obtrusive in the street scene and would dominate views across a nearby road junction. The appellant stated that the hoarding was intended to be in position for a period of approximately six weeks a year to coincide with the championships held at the All England Lawn Tennis Club in nearby Wimbledon. However, the inspector opined that this would not lessen the visual harm and the mere fact that it would not be a permanent feature would not render it acceptable.

EAST HERTFORDSHIRE

SURROUNDED, COVEYS LANE, SAWBRIDGEWORTH, HERTS

An inspector partially supported an appellant who sought to replace a bungalow in Hertfordshire with a replacement property after concluding that it was preferable to allow it to be rebuilt rather than renovated. However a two storey replacement dwelling was dismissed. The existing property had been built between the two world wars and had been subject to major renovation in the 1960’s. The council stated that the existing building was capable of being renovated at a cost of £130,000. It asserted that this was lower than replacing it entirely with a new single storey dwelling at a cost of £173,000. The appellant disputed the cost of renovation claiming that the whole structure needed to be underpinned generating to a total cost of over £200,000. The inspector decided that both estimates lacked precision. However in his opinion renovating the existing property was unlikely to cost materially less than building a dwelling of the same size based on the council’s figures. In addition he opined that it also seemed likely that extensive underpinning would be required including works to internal load bearing walls which if anything would substantially increase the potential costs. Therefore a replacement structure was preferable. In so finding the inspector concluded that a tow storey dwelling would undermine the visual amenity of the area. Eight dormer windows would be inserted into the roof slopes he noted which would produce a building of considerably greater mass and since the council’s policies were aimed at ensuring that replacement dwellings were restricted in size, the second appeal should be dismissed he concluded.

30 RAPHAEL DRIVE, WATFORD, HERTS, WD24 4GY

A householder in Hertfordshire did not succeed in gaining retrospective planning permission for a rear extension after failing to comply with a condition requiring matching materials or approved alternatives. The dwelling was a mid terrace house which was finished with a yellow brick. The single storey flat-roofed extension had been finished with a red brick. The appellant contended that the bricks used on the extension matched 70 per cent of those used on the original dwelling. An inspector noted that there were some matching tones within the red multi brick used on the extension and the yellow multi brick on the original and neighbouring dwellings, but he held that overall the bricks appeared significantly different. The inspector observed that a variety of brick colours were used in the area but where different colours were used on the same building they were used in a structured way to introduce contrast and interest. However, he judged that the bricks used on the extension appeared odd and incongruous against the backdrop of the original and neighbouring dwellings. He concluded that the extension harmed the character and appearance of the area.

BRECON BEACONS N.PK

THE OLD POST OFFICE, MERTHYR ROAD, GOVILON NP7 9PT

The conversion of a single room which had last been used as a post office in the Brecon Beacons national park, into a dwellinghouse was held by an inspector to be an inevitable consequence of its closure in 2008. The appellants claimed that the premises had functioned solely as a post office with no additional retail activity having taken place. Following the government’s review of post office facilities it closed despite attempts to keep it open they asserted. The premises formed a single room which was linked to an existing dwelling and they argued that it would be impractical to use it for anything other than residential use. The inspector generally agreed with these arguments. Since it had functioned only as a post office, the loss of the premises would not result in any further diminution of local community services. The village retained a general store he noted and given the backgrounds to its closure there was no realistic prospect of a post-office re-opening he concluded. Its closure was outside the control of the appellants and the local planning authority and therefore the change of use was justified.

DAVID LLOYD LEISURE, BAUGH ROAD, SIDCUP, DA14 5ED

The temporary provision of an inflated dome over two outdoor tennis courts at a health and fitness club in the Kent green belt was rejected because it would undermine the openness of the area. The dome measuring approximately 35 metres by 32 metres would have a maximum height of nine metres and be in place approximately six months each year. The appellants claimed that the facility was essential for the playing of outdoor sport and therefore complied with national guidance in PPG2 on green belt development. They also stated that the dome was necessary in order to allow the two outdoor courts to be used to their full potential. The inspector decided that the dome would in effect transform an outdoor recreational facility into an indoor one. Therefore it was not an essential facility related to the playing of sport outdoors he decided. It would have a considerable volume and would reduce the openness of the green belt which could only be justified if very special circumstances were justified. In this context although the club had been established for many years and the scheme had the support of the lawn tennis association, the conflict with green belt policy had to carry more weight he held

SHERWOOD, BAMPTON, TIVERTON, DEVON EX16 9NL

A condition imposed on a planning permission authorising the erection of a replacement dwelling in the Devon countryside was upheld by an inspector who concluded that retaining the existing bungalow would breach development plan policies. The existing property had been built in 1910 and lay on a terrace on the edge of a village. The appellants had secured permission for a replacement property closer to a group of existing buildings which lay at the bottom of the slope. At the time permission had been given the appellants claimed that they needed to obtain easier access to a dwelling which avoided climbing a difficult slope up to the existing property. However they now claimed that retaining the existing house as a holiday let was preferable to seeing it demolished. The inspector noted that a local plan policy supported the erection of replacement dwellings provided it was within the same curtilage and the footprint was of a similar size. The policy clearly intended that the former dwelling should be demolished he decided and in the case before him the replacement property would be less visually conspicuous and better related to existing buildings. Although re-use of the existing property would conserve an existing resource, its retention was not justified given the countryside location and the fact that the council was unlikely to have granted permission for a second dwelling if the appellants had sought to retain the existing property as a holiday let.

THE PICKWICK ARMS, GASKELL AVENUE, SOUTH SHIELDS NE34 9TQ

The location of a taxi office within a large public house on Tyneside was judged to be acceptable for a trial period despite concerns that it would generate undue noise and disturbance. An inspector noted that the public house had recently re-opened and was set within a large housing estate. In his opinion it was possible that on occasion groups of inebriated and noisy customers might wish to avail themselves of the taxi services at closing time. However the proximity of the taxi office might well reduce the amount of time such people lingered on the area he concluded since it would be possible to order a taxi very quickly. In his opinion the additional disturbance was unlikely to be significant. Since he could not be absolutely certain that this would be the case he granted permission for the use to operate for 14 months after which time the council could review the position.

FELICIA PARK COMMUNITY FARM, SEALARK ROAD, GOSPORT, P012 4JR

The redevelopment of a site allocated for educational use as part of a housing development in Hampshire was allowed to proceed on the basis that all the properties would be affordable. A local plan identified the majority of the appeal site for use as a primary school. However the local education authority subsequently confirmed that a new school was no longer necessary. The council stated that in the event that the site was no longer needed for educational use, then its local plan policy confirmed that a recreational or community use was to be preferred. There was no need for additional housing it asserted and should be retained as open space. The inspector agreed that the site could make an important contribution towards strengthening the environmental and open space infrastructure and in the event that open market housing was proposed, then he would have had no hesitation in dismissing the appeal. However all of the houses were proposed to be affordable he noted in a location where there was an acute shortage. Part of the site would be retained for public open space and in the event that the appeal was to be dismissed, there was no clear cut evidence that the council would purchase the site for open space use. On this basis the scheme was justified he held.

OXHEY HALL BARNS, OFF HAMPERMILL LANE, OXHEY, HERTS WD19 4NU

The conversion of grade II listed barns in the Hertfordshire green belt was held to be objectionable on the basis that it would undermine the openness and character of the area. The appellant stated that the barns would be put to beneficial use and be available for film and still photography use 90 days each year between april and september. She stated that income from the use would go towards upkeep of the buildings thereby securing their long term future. The inspector decided that the adverse impact upon the openness of the area as a consequence of the large number of vehicles which would be present when films were being produced, would be unacceptable. This impact would be compounded by undermining the character of the countryside and the pleasantly rural appearance of the locality. It would also undermine the amenity of residents living in a nearby cottage he decided.

11 LANKTON CLOSE, BECKENHAM, BR3 5DZ

An inspector quashed an enforcement notice directed at the use of a house in south London for a fat reduction service, finding that no material change of use had occurred. The notice referred to a liposuction clinic. The inspector pointed out that liposuction was an operation by which fat was sucked out from under the skin. However, the appellant operated a machine which penetrated the skin with cold laser beams just deep enough to reach layers of fat. The claimed results included a reduction of body fat and the tightening of skin. The inspector therefore corrected the notice accordingly. The only room used in connection with the business was also used by the family as an office, home gym, ironing and hobby room, and it was only used for between one and three hours per week. The inspector noted that there were no deliveries to the premises and that there was adequate parking available. He concluded that the business had not resulted in any significant difference in the character of the activities carried on at the premises and quashed the notice.

LE PETIT BIJOU, 9 HIGH STREET, OLNEY, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE MK46 4EB

A listed building enforcement notice directed at the painting of a shop in a Buckinghamshire town was upheld because it failed to preserve the special interest of the building and harmed the conservation area. The repainting scheme had retained the original white of the stall risers but replaced the grey of the timber work with a bold purple. An inspector considered that it was overtly modern and uncharacteristic of 18th century architecture, contrasting markedly with the more muted and dignified colours of most other shopfronts in the street. He opined that the combined effect of the repainting scheme and new signage had materially altered the character of the façade so that it no longer integrated with the wider street scene but stood out as a landmark feature to the detriment of the established character of the area. The inspector acknowledged the strength of feeling among many customers and others who found the appearance of the repainted building acceptable and, in some cases, a marked improvement on what went before. He remarked, however, that his duty under section 16(2) of the Act was to seek the preservation of the architectural integrity and historic character of the building. He was not persuaded that the colour scheme or the sign achieved that objective.