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.
  
100-049-015 MAIDSTONE
LAND AT ABBEY COURT, BOARLEY LANE, MAIDSTONE ME14 3AL
Office scheme approved in strategic gap The secretary of state following call-in agreed that planning permission should be granted for the erection of office and research buildings in a strategic gap in Kent. The 3.2ha site contained a two storey building which had originally been used as offices and was currently in use as a dwelling. The site also contained two lakes, gardens and a tennis court. The applicants proposed to demolish the buildings and erect four linked glass and steel framed offices creating 3,146m2 of floorspace to be occupied by a market research company which would also include a call centre. A total of 250 employees would ultimately be employed at the site they stated. The secretary of state agreed that the proposal involved an office development on an out of centre site and accordingly in accordance with PPS6 it was necessary for the applicants to demonstrate a need for the development and that no alternative sites existed. She noted that there had been a decline in the amount of business floorspace in a nearby town and the uptake of high quality offices on a local business park indicated that there was a quantitative and qualitative need for the scheme. Although some of the alternative sites investigated by the applicants were sequentially preferable to the application site, none of these were either currently available or suitable for the type and scale of development proposed. She decided that the scheme conflicted with strategic gap policies. However it would have minimal impact on its character she decided. When coupled with the need for additional business floorspace and the proposed travel plan to control the number of employees travelling by car, she decided that permission should be granted.
100-049-018 MERTON
WINDMILL TRADING ESTATE, COMMONSIDE EAST, MITCHAM, CR4 1HT
Development plan conflicts outweighed by housing benefits The secretary of state accepted her inspector’s recommendation and allowed the redevelopment of existing buildings and structures on a trading estate in south London with a mixed use development. The scheme comprised eleven blocks ranging between three and five storeys in height to provide 248 residential units, a 2799 square metre business centre, 420 square metres retail unit and 150 car parking spaces. The secretary of state concluded that the development would provide much needed housing, particularly affordable housing, in a sustainable location. She was satisfied that the design would provide future occupants with reasonable internal and external living environments whilst also enhancing the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Although the proposal would lead to loss of employment floorspace, there was no shortage of this in the borough and the new commercial and retail units would provide as much, if not more, potential for jobs. Whilst there were conflicts with the development plan, the secretary of state concluded that the potential housing benefits far outweighed any harm that might be caused by these conflicts.
100-049-024 BROMLEY
LAND AT 10 CAMDEN PARK ROAD, CHISLEHURST, KENT
Swimming pool exceeds permitted development limits In quashing an enforcement notice requiring the removal of a swimming pool, patio and retaining walls at a dwellinghouse in a Kent conservation area, an inspector held that the scheme was not permitted under the GPDO 1995. The appellants argued that the swimming pool and development ancillary to it, fell outside the definition of a “building” as set out in Article 1 of the GPDO. Consequently they claimed that the development including steps leading into it were permitted under Class E of Part 1 to Schedule 2 of the order. The inspector disagreed with this view. The swimming pool was a structure which even when entirely below ground level and uncovered, constituted a building with a cubic content. Since the pool lay within a conservation area and exceeded 10m3 in volume planning permission was required he held. In relation to the planning merits, he inspector noted that views of the pool were very restricted and confined to the rear gardens of adjacent properties. Moreover the patio, steps and pool did not appear to be significantly higher than the original ground levels he noted. It did not reduce the privacy of local residents and accordingly permission was justified he concluded.
100-049-028 STRATFORD-UPON-AVON
SITE OF THE FORMER CATTLE MARKET AND LAND ADJACENT TO THE RAILWAY STATION, ALCESTER ROAD, STRATFORD-UPON-AVON
Intimate station square supports mixed use scheme A major mixed use redevelopment in Stratford-upon-Avon won support from an inspector who decided that it would achieve a high quality design and an intimate square in front of a new transport interchange. The scheme involved 197 residential units, Class B1 business floorspace, a mixture of food and drink uses, a bus/rail interchange, toilets and public realm spaces together with new car parking. The council’s main objection lay in the design of the development and its relationship to the town centre. It desired to see an improved physical and visual link between the existing railway station and the town centre which would involve setting back the façade of the building and creating a wider vista. It also claimed that the overall design was mediocre. The inspector was not convinced that this was necessary, concluding that this was unlikely to result in any effective strengthening of the visual relationship between the station and the town. The creation of a “station square” was one of the best features of the scheme he determined, with its generous yet intimate space unencumbered by vehicle movements and the presence of public art and adjoining retail and other uses, would enable travellers to pause and reflect on their journey. In relation to the overall design of the scheme the inspector decided that the council had failed to fully justify its criticisms and had relied upon comments submitted by Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE). The latter stated that the scheme did not reflect the importance of the site and showed little sense of place and identity he noted. However in his view the contemporary design employing a variety of roof styles and profiles was compatible with the town’s eclectic mix of medieval, Tudor, Georgian, Regency and Victorian architecture he mused. Overall it would deliver a mixed use scheme in a highly sustainable location and would enable a pronounced improvement in the appearance and environment of the station and the surrounding area.
100-049-032 LAKE DISTRICT N.PK
LAND AT MEADFOOT AND ENGADINE, NEW ROAD, WINDERMERE LA23 2LA
Sheltered national park housing not needed A development of 44 sheltered housing units in Windermere in the Lake District national park, was refused after the appellants failed to demonstrate a need for the development. The appellants stated that the units would be available to people aged 55 years and older. They had undertaken a survey of households in the town which identified 12 households aged 55 or over which met the council’s definition of being in need for accommodation. They argued that the survey probably underestimated the scale of the need, noting that a survey undertaken by the council indicated a greater requirement for sheltered accommodation. The inspector in noting that the development plan policies pre-dated national advice in PPS3 held that “housing need” had to be distinguished from “housing demand”. The former related to the quantity of housing required for households who were unable to access suitable housing without financial assistance whereas the latter related to the quantity of housing that households in a given area were willing to buy or rent. In her opinion the provision of specialist housing on the open market would meet a demand rather than a need in Windermere. Development plan policies required that new properties should be affordable and be subject to occupancy controls. The appellants’ however had not produced a mechanism to ensure that the dwellings would be affordable and had sought to rely largely upon restricting the age of the future occupiers she opined which failed to meet the council’s policies. In addition she decided that the appellants had not demonstrated a need for 44 sheltered units. The survey suggested that the need was significantly less even if adjoining parishes were included, she decided. Since the development plan policies required developers to prove that there was a need she concluded that this also counted against the scheme. Finally the inspector accepted that the appellants had put forward changes to a legal obligation which introduced price controls to the properties. Units would be available to rent, lease or be held on life leases. The latter involved the freeholder offering a lease at a discounted rate and who then took the property back when the occupier died, she noted. While such units could be described as a form of low cost market housing the inspector noted that the obligation did not define how many life lease properties would be offered. Consequently the scheme failed to ensure that the units would be genuinely affordable to those in need.
100-049-036 NORTH DEVON
TRUDE FARM, GOODLEIGH, BARNSTAPLE, DEVON EX32 7NH
Caravan fails in test to become building A LDC seeking confirmation that a caravan at a goat farm in Devon had become a dwellinghouse and therefore immune from enforcement action was rejected after an inspector expressed his sympathy for the appellants’ predicament. The inspector at the outset of his decision stated that the appellants had built up a considerable herd of goats and a substantial investment had been made in the farm in terms of an automated milking parlour and a dairy. However he opined that a LDC appeal was limited to assessing whether something was lawful for the purposes of planning legislation and the planning merits of retaining the structure were of no consequence. He noted that the appellants had brought a caravan onto the site and had subsequently altered its construction by supporting it on concrete block pillars. The tow bar, wheels and axles were removed and services had been attached to the structure. Two heavy duty steel chains had also been wrapped around the metal chassis with the ends of the chains set into concrete filled holes, he observed. In his opinion these changes failed to give the structure the necessary degree of affixation to the ground so as to render it incapable of being moved. The structure could be lifted in one piece by a crane or hoist onto the back of a lorry, he decided and the chains could be cut together with that part of the chassis which was affixed to the concrete block pillars. Thus the operational development which had been undertaken in respect of the pillars, chains and the digging of trenches were incidental to the stationing of the caravan in accordance with the fining in Murfitt v Secretary of State for Environment and East Cambridgeshire District Council (1980) and did not alter its status in any way he deduced. Consequently since it had been on site for just over four years it was not immune from enforcement action having failed to be on site for the relevant 10 year period and he dismissed the appeal.
100-049-040 BASSETLAW
LAND OFF SOUTHGORE LANE, NORTH LEVERTON, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
Egg production unit would not harm rural landscape Proposals for a 9000 bird organic free range egg production unit and the siting of a mobile home in Nottinghamshire were allowed, an inspector finding that the character and appearance of the countryside would not be unduly harmed by the egg unit and that the mobile home was justified as an exception to policies designed to protect the countryside. The council considered that the land could continue to be used for agriculture without the development and that therefore the development could not be deemed to be essential to the operational needs of agriculture. An inspector found this argument difficult to support because it would render many forms of agricultural development on agricultural enterprises unacceptable. In addition he found no evidence that the development would result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land. The inspector observed that the building would be well-screened in views around the site. He considered that even if some of the screening hedgerows were reduced in height the building had a typical agricultural appearance which would not look out of place in the rural landscape. The inspector considered that the supporting evidence indicated a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise which had been planned on a sound financial basis. He was satisfied that the demands of the enterprise required a full-time worker to be readily available at most times. He concluded that the mobile home was a necessary and essential requirement of the proposed free range egg production enterprise and satisfied the criteria for temporary agricultural dwellings in Annex A of PPS7.
100-049-044 EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE
LAND TO THE EAST OF HAILGATE, HOWDEN, EAST YORKSHIRE DN14 7SY
New road design judged acceptable in historic core The redevelopment of a redundant transport depot in the historic core of an east Yorkshire town with a small convenience supermarket, car parks and residential development was allowed primarily because it would not harm the character or appearance of the conservation area or the setting of nearby listed buildings. An inspector observed that the development would create a new street that would reflect the alignment of the major medieval streets. He was aware of concerns expressed by English Heritage and noted that, unlike other major routes within the historic core, the width of the road would be consistent throughout its length. However, he took the view that the width reflected the function of the road and was the minimum necessary to safely and efficiently serve a significant development plan allocation comprising public car parking, a supermarket, a large area of mixed tenure housing and the variety of traffic likely to be generated. The inspector found the design of the scheme to be acceptable and agreed with English Heritage that the designer of the supermarket had succeeded in ensuring that it did not look like a modern convenience store. He had no doubt that there were a variety of site layouts that would mimic more closely the medieval layout of the historic core. However, he considered that with the judicious use of tree planting and the introduction of walling or fencing and the use of high quality materials, the intimacy found within the historic core could be replicated. The inspector also allowed an appeal relating to the residential development of a neighbouring site because, given his conclusions on the first appeal, it would not prejudice the comprehensive redevelopment of the area.
100-049-049 CRAWLEY
LAND AT LUCERNE DRIVE AND BALCOMBE ROAD, MAIDENBOWER, CRAWLEY
Housing secured on longstanding employment site A proposal for housing on approximately 1.9ha of land in West Sussex was sanctioned notwithstanding the council’s concern regarding its suitability for employment use. The greenfield site formed part of a once larger area designated for employment purposes. However in 2005 planning permission was granted for residential development on the southern part of the land and for an office development on the appeal site. The council argued that having undertaken an employment land review, there was a shortfall in sites needed to fulfil its strategic requirements to 2018 and as a consequence the appeal site should be retained for B1 employment use. It also asserted that the marketing exercise undertaken by the appellants was inadequate and failed to adequately test the extent of potential occupiers. The inspector noted that even if the appeal site were removed from the figures the overall shortfall in employment land was less than 10% and in his opinion the overall supply was relatively robust. Although he agreed that there were shortcomings in the marketing campaign, he decided that there was a demonstrable reluctance of businesses to locate a B1 office use on the land. Set against this was the unequivocal need for additional housing land the inspector ruled, noting that a number of the sites identified as suitable by the council failed to meet the deliverability criteria in PPS3 on housing. Given that the scheme would secure 40% of the units as affordable the inspector decided that the balance lay in favour of allowing the appeal.
100-049-052 NORTH YORK MOORS N.PK
NEWLANDS FARM, CHOP GATE, BILSDALE, TS9 7JL
Local occupancy condition substituted for farm worker An appeal seeking the removal of an agricultural occupancy condition imposed on a farm dwelling in the North York Moors national park, was allowed with an inspector imposing another condition limiting occupation to a local resident or family. The appellant stated that the property had been marketed with an asking price in excess of £300,000. This had been agreed with the local planning authority’s independent advisor taking into account a discount of between 30% and 40% on its open market value. Several offers were received he stated but all were below the asking price with one offer of £275,000 subject to obtaining planning permission for a farm shop. A further offer of £280,000 by another prospective purchaser was subsequently withdrawn he stated. The inspector agreed that the appellant had submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there were no prospective purchasers willing to offer close to the asking price. There was no evidence to suggest that a genuine attempt had not been made she opined, to sell the property. In allowing the appeal she imposed an alternative condition which limited the occupation of the property to a person permanently resident in the national park for at least three years or who had longstanding links with the local community or who had an essential need to live close to their place of work.
100-049-059 WIRRAL
LAND ADJACENT TO 1 ROCK PARK, ROCK FERRY, WIRRAL
Dormer and roof pitch details agreed in enforcement case An enforcement notice requiring the demolition of a block of 16 flats in a Wirral conservation area, was quashed after an inspector held that the changes made to the approved scheme by the appellants were acceptable. The council had imposed a condition on the planning permission for the development which required that the details of the roof and dormer window details to be carried out only in accordance with those specified in the planning application. However the appellants had constructed a pitch roof with a 45 degree angle whereas the approved drawings required a pitch of 35 degrees. In addition changes had been made to the parapets associated with the dormer windows. The inspector noted that Georgian buildings in the area typically had roof pitches of about 35 degrees. Thus he opined a roof pitch of 45 degrees on a Georgian style building would appear incongruous without substantial dormers to reduce its prominence. In the case of the appeal building which was a modern structure, the use of dormer windows to break up the massing of the roof slope meant that it did not adversely affect the character of the conservation area, he opined. Subject to lowering the height of a lift shaft projecting above the top of the building the inspector decided that the notice should be quashed.
100-049-062 ENFIELD
PERGAMOID SITE, NOBEL ROAD, EDMONTON, LONDON N18 3BH
Flood risk assessment queried at recycling site Retrospective permission was granted for the use of industrial land in north London as a waste transfer and recycling facility, after an inspector noted that the Environment Agency’s flood risk assessment was potentially inaccurate. The site contained a large metal roof building together with a portable building. The remainder of the site was open with piles of building materials in different stages of grading together with plant, machinery and skips. The Environment Agency (EA) had informed the council that the whole of the site had a high probability of flooding and consequently even small losses of flood water storage capacity was unacceptable. The appellants asserted however that there were fundamental flaws in the EA’s flood risk modelling and using more accurate predictions, the site was unlikely to flood. They demonstrated that the EA’s model gave rise to inconsistent results in the area. The model predicted that the site would flood each year. However they stated that it had not flooded in at least the last seven years including a large flood event in 2000 when other parts of the industrial estate were subject to inundation. The inspector agreed with the appellants, noting that it was unfortunate that the EA had not attended the meeting to defend its position. In respect of the impact on the character and appearance of the area, she noted that there were limited views of the site and it was sited in a long established industrial area. Subject to suitable conditions limiting the height of the stockpiles and no burning of waste, she allowed the appeal.
100-049-066 TEIGNBRIDGE
28 COURTENAY STREET, NEWTON ABBOT, DEVON TQ12 2DT
Amusement centre would not harm retail function The change of use a shop in a Devon town to an amusement centre was allowed because it would not harm the retail function and character of the primary shopping area. The main parties noted that there was no prescribed method for measuring the retail frontage. The council preferred counting units based on postal numbers whilst the appellants suggested measuring the frontage length of non-retail uses. In the inspector’s view the latter provided the more accurate method as the former treated units of significantly different widths equally. Taking the frontage length as his preferred means of measurement the inspector found that the non-retail proportion would be about 24% of the overall frontage, leaving the retail frontage well above the 70% level that the council sought to retain.
100-049-075 NEWPORT
THE LAWNS CLUB, 11 KENSINGTON GROVE, NEWPORT NP19 8GJ
Demolition of listed building not justified An inspector refused to sanction the demolition of a fire-damaged listed building in a conservation area in a south Wales town because it was not justified. Having received the appellant’s estimated costs of repairing and rebuilding the listed building, the council was of the opinion that the appellants had not met the tests in paragraphs 91 and 92 of Welsh Office Circular 61/96. This guidance stated that the Assembly Government would not expect consent to be granted for demolition simply because demolition and redevelopment was economically more attractive to the developer than repair and re-use of an historic building. In order to assess the viability of restoration the inspector found that it was necessary to consider the potential value of the restored building and the whole site, bearing in mind that there was an extant permission for the conversion of the building into two dwellings and the erection of two new dwellings as enabling development in the grounds. He reasoned that such a scheme would have a substantial after value, but noted that the appellant had not suggested any figures for comparison with the estimated refurbishment costs. Consequently, he found that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that it would not be economically viable to preserve the building, as there was no estimated value of the renovated property for comparison. He noted that it appeared from the evidence that the building had been deliberately neglected since the appellant took it over as there had been no attempt to make it weatherproof or to stabilise the damaged areas. The inspector noted that the building had not been advertised for sale on the open market and there was no evidence to show that it had been offered to a charity or community organisation as an alternative means of securing its future use. Its viability had therefore not been tested in a wider market. The inspector did not accept that all reasonable efforts had been made to retain and preserve the listed building and therefore decided that it would not be appropriate to allow it to be completely demolished.
100-049-076 RHONDDA CYNON TAFF
FORMER ELECTRICITY SUBSTATION, CLUN AVENUE, PONTYCLUN CF72 9AG
Intensification of funeral director’s use would harm residents’ amenity The conversion and extension of an electricity substation in south Wales to a funeral director’s was rejected because it would harm highway safety and result in noise and disturbance to neighbours. The conversion had already taken place. It was proposed to use the extension as a coffin store. The access to the parking area at the rear of the building was via a lane which also provided access to the rear of a number of dwellings, several garages, and to the appellant’s land and workshops. The inspector noted that there was a record of accidents having occurred at the junction. He considered that the intended use of the site would be likely to intensify the vehicular use of the lane significantly and therefore increase the prevailing risk to highway safety. The inspector noted that 32 funerals had taken place from the site in the previous year. No manufacturing took place on the site and the building did not have the facilities for the laying out of bodies. The sale of headstones was infrequent. The inspector did not consider that such a low level of activity would create unacceptable noise or disturbance. However, he held that it was necessary to bear in mind that unless it amounted to a material change in the character of the area, intensification of activities might become unacceptably intrusive. He noted that in the appeal case many activities including manufacturing, sales, the laying out of bodies and the gathering of numbers of people to accompany a hearse to a funeral would be in keeping with the character of a funeral director’s business. Since his concerns related to activities associated with the use that had been applied for they could not be overcome by a condition restricting activities to those associated with that use or with a particular class of uses.
100-049-081 SWANSEA
DRUMAU HOUSE, BIRCHGROVE ROAD, BIRCHGROVE, SWANSEA SA7 9JR
Restoration of ‘lost’ manor house denied An appellant’s desire to restore a derelict manor house in a green wedge in south Wales, was thwarted after an inspector held it conflicted with a raft of planning policies. The 2.3ha appeal site contained the derelict ruins of a former mansion house which was described as one of Wales’ lost houses. Approximately 60% of the front elevation remained and a roof covered a southern wing. The council stated that the mansion was last occupied in the early 1970’s and had since fallen into a serious state of disrepair and collapse. The inspector decided that the residential use had clearly been abandoned and to introduce four dwellings into a green wedge conflicted with various local and national policies. Although the building in terms of its shape and mass would be very similar to the former mansion house, the four dwellings which would be contained within the building would erode the openness of the area and undermine the generally undeveloped character of the locality. Although the scheme also involved restoring the former grounds, no formal mechanism to guarantee the works had been put forward by the appellant, the inspector noted. In any event the restoration of the grounds was not necessarily dependent upon allowing four dwellings to be built in the countryside and he dismissed the appeal.
100-049-082 CARMARTHENSHIRE
THE CHANDLERS YARD, BURRY PORT, LLANELLI, CARMARTHENSHIRE
Details held to accord with outline permission In allowing an appeal and granting reserved matters approval for housing development in south Wales, an inspector disagreed with the council that it fell outside the scope of an outline planning permission. The council highlighted the fact that a condition imposed on the outline planning permission stated that the design, scale and use of materials to be used in the construction of the proposed dwellings should reflect the character and appearance of existing dwellings adjacent to the site. Since the scheme included three storey development which was not a design found in adjoining houses, the council relying on the judgment in Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Environment and Bovis Homes Ltd [1997], claimed that the details fell outside the scope of the permission. The inspector noted that the condition required the design of the new dwellings to “reflect” the character and appearance of the adjoining houses. He rejected the council’s suggestion that this meant “mirror” and opined that the intention was to ensure that the development would be in keeping with and sympathetic to the adjacent dwellings. The additional storey proposed within part of the scheme created a stronger townscape and urban form compared to the two storey development already approved by the council, he judged. It would create a more interesting skyline and create a more balanced townscape he decided and allowed the appeal.
100-049-086 COLCHESTER
118 HIGH STREET, COICLIESTER, ESSEX
Appellants’ retail use calculation not accepted The continued use of a former shop in Colchester as a café was rejected because it harmed the vitality and viability of the town centre. An inspector noted that the premises were in an area identified in the local plan as a mixed use area, where a range of uses considered complementary to the adjacent town centre core was permitted. The criteria included that proposals which would result in less than 50% of retail frontage in any one defined street frontage would be refused. The council calculated that some 37.3% of the frontage was in retail use. The appellants indicated that the council’s definition of the frontage excluded some properties at one end, which if taken into account would increase the proportion in retail use to about 42%. They also argued that part of the frontage comprised council offices and a job centre which were fixed element that were unlikely to change, and that if these were excluded the retail element of the residual frontage would be about 50%. They further indicated that five of the nine units in the immediate vicinity were in retail use. However, the inspector took the view that the balance between shopping and other uses in the area could be eroded incrementally if these alternative approaches were taken. The appellants maintained that the development plan required a flexible approach, but the inspector considered that the local plan had already addressed this by stepping down the percentage of retail uses from the town centre retail core.
100-049-088 MENDIP
PARKWOOD ESTATE, EAST SOMERSET WAY, WELLS, SOMERSET
Odour worry from slurry spreading unfounded The redevelopment of a factory site in Somerset was approved notwithstanding the council’s concerns that odour from an adjoining farm would adversely affect the amenity of future occupiers. The scheme involved erecting 125 residential units, sheltered housing, a hotel with public house, restaurant and offices. It bounded buildings and yards associated with a large farm which also included a slurry lagoon, the contents of which were emptied and spread on the fields on a regular basis. The council argued that a 100m separation distance between the boundary of the holding and the proposed residential properties was required in order to ensure that odours from the slurry spreading and lagoon did not adversely affect the amenity of future occupiers. The inspector decided that this was not required. He noted that the slurry spreading normally did not take place in adverse weather conditions and from his site visit the smell while noticeable was not overwhelming. Although spreading took place on 21 days per year the appellants’ evidence suggested that odours within the appeal site would fall within guidelines set down by the Environment Agency.
100-049-097 DONCASTER
80 DONCASTER ROAD, HATFIELD, DONCASTER DN7 6AT
Greenfield moratorium of no relevance to appeal In allowing an appeal involving the erection of 14 dwellings in south Yorkshire, an inspector held that a council’s policy which sought to prevent development on Greenfield land, was of no relevance. The council had issued a LDC in 2006 which confirmed that the site had been used as part of the domestic curtilage of a dwellinghouse. The inspector noted that national advice in PPS3 stated that previously developed land included the curtilage associated with a permanent structure. While it also advised that there was no presumption that all the land should be developed this was irrelevant in deciding whether it involved brownfield land the inspector ruled. Consequently it was not open to the council to assess whether it was previously developed on the basis of its desire to see only a part of it to be developed he mused. The LDC confirmed that the whole of the site was previously developed and accordingly was not subject to the council’s moratorium on building houses on greenfield land.
100-049-101 WORTHING
FORMER NORTHBROOK COLLEGE, UNION PLACE, WORTHING, W SUSSEX
Assisted living compatible with listed building Listed building consent and planning permission were authorised for the erection of 65 assisted living apartments in West Sussex, the council’s concern regarding adverse impact to its character being overruled. An inspector decided that the fabric and appearance of the listed building lacked quality and many of the proposed items of work involving its change of use would probably enhance the presentation and understanding of its architectural origins. Although further design work was required to the tower roof, this could be controlled through conditions he opined. The massing and contemporary design of the new build which would form an extension to the listed building was an acceptable response to its architectural importance he determined and allowed the appeals.
100-049-107 GREENWICH
LAND AT AND TO THE REAR OF 132 AVERY HILL ROAD, LONDON
Reduced affordable housing justified by development costs The secretary of state agreed that a developer should provide approximately 37% affordable units in a mixed use scheme in south east London due to abnormal development costs. However she ruled that the scheme was for other reasons unacceptable. The scheme involved 261 residential units, shops, a community hall, medical surgery and open space on the site of a disused sports ground. The appellants stated that the scheme would make beneficial use of redundant land which would also enable the creation of a public park and new sports facilities. The council in contrast argued that it would lead to the loss of open space with the creation of a public park below the recommended size. In addition it would introduce buildings up to four and half storeys in height which was at odds with the two storey dwellings adjacent to the site. The secretary of state noted that the borough was exceeding its housing supply targets and had identified sufficient sites to deliver a 15 years supply of housing. However new housing targets were minimum levels the secretary of state noted and did not preclude the addition of further houses. She also accepted that due to the need to provide the community hall, medical centre and public open space the scheme did not need to provide 50% of the units as affordable dwellings. However in her opinion the scale and form of development was inappropriate to the local context and given any pressing need to release the site she decided that its designation as community open space should be given full weight. In arriving at this conclusion she accepted that its current use as public open space was severely limited and recognised that the scheme would create a local park and modern sports pitches.
100-048-781 WEST LOTHIAN
TORMYWHEEL, LEVEN SEAT, FAULDHOUSE
Condition potentially overcomes aviation concerns A reporter decided that planning permission should be granted for the erection of 15 wind turbines between Glasgow and Edinburgh, concluding that a condition could be imposed requiring the submission of a scheme dealing with the potential impact on the operation of two radar installations. The turbines would have a hub height of 60m and a rotor diameter of 84m. Each would be set on a reinforced concrete foundation and would generate 2.75MW each giving a total installed capacity of 41.25MW. The appellants argued that the turbines lay adjacent to a “preferred area” for wind farm development and given that only four of the turbines would be sited in an area of special landscape control, the overall impact on the character and appearance of the area would be acceptable. The reporter accepted that an assessment of the significance of the visual impacts inevitably involved a judgement. In her view it was unrealistic to expect a wind farm which required an elevated and exposed location in order to operate efficiently, not to be conspicuous. Although some changes in views would be significant she decided the overall impact would not be unacceptable. With regard to the impact of the turbines on two radar stations including one associated with Edinburgh airport, she noted that British Airports Authority and National Air Traffic Services Ltd had objected to the development and on the evidence submitted it was not clear that a solution could be found. However relying on the judgement in British Railways Board v Secretary of State for the Environment and Hounslow London Borough Council [1994], she did not need to be satisfied in imposing a negatively worded condition, that there was a reasonable prospect that the measures required to make the development acceptable would be provided within the lifetime of the permission. Consequently she decided that a condition preventing the wind farm from commencing until a scheme to protect the efficiency of the two radar stations had been agreed and implemented, would provide an acceptable safeguard she opined.
100-048-811 CAERPHILLY
LAND AT WYTH ERW FARM, BEDWAS, CAERPHILLY, CF83 8ER
Moto-cross practice rejected in special landscape The use of land in a special landscape area in south Wales, as a moto-cross practice track was rule out by an inspector who decided that it would be too noisy and visually intrusive. The inspector noted that the land was already used as a practice circuit and the tracks had cut through the vegetation into the underlying rock. Although the appellant suggested that the site could be landscaped, the inspector decided that the site had become unsightly and an intensification of the use would simply exacerbate its unacceptable impact. In addition the noise of motorcycles on the land would detract from the quiet enjoyment of the area by walkers and horse riders he decided.