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.
        
100-075-135 2011 WEST SUSSEX
ALLOWED
The erection of 39 dwellings on 1.5ha of land in Sussex and identified in the council’s local plan as a strategic gap was permitted after an inspector concluded that it would not compromise its integrity and would meet a need for new housing. The inspector noted that the site lay on the edge of the gap and was already surrounded on three sides by existing development. Additionally, the council had granted planning permission for the redevelopment of a site to the south which would include a substantial commercial building and car parking. In her opinion, the appeal site made little contribution to the role played by the strategic gap and housing on the site would not undermine the fundamental objective of maintaining a clear distinction between settlements. In this regard she also rejected the council’s claim that it would set an undesirable precedent since such an argument could only have force if sites identical to the appeal site could be identified. If sites were available then given her conclusions on this matter, their development would similarly not erode the strategic gap to a greater degree. Turning to housing land supply, the council had provided two calculations and relied on the second which assumed that all dwellings on large and small sites would be delivered in full with no allowance for non-completions. Even on this basis there was less than a five years’ supply, she recorded. In her opinion, the council’s approach was unrealistic since it was usual to make some allowance for the failure of some sites not to deliver housing at the predicted rate or for some sites not to come forward at all. The council’s assessment also identified sites which had been identified as being potentially most suitable for housing but which were not allocated for such development in a development plan document. In relation to the council’s further claim that it intended to adopt a much lower housing land requirement following the revocation of the regional spatial strategy for the area, the council concluded that this would have to be justified and was not adopted. The existing situation had to be addressed by making decisions now, she held, noting that the draft national planning policy document stated that local planning authorities should make an additional allowance of 20 per cent to ensure choice and competition in the market for new housing.
100-075-139 2011 LONDON
ALLOWED
A development including the provision of 268 student bedrooms together with storage and a distribution unit at ground floor was secured in north-west London despite the council’s claim that it would lead to the loss of an important employment building and would be detrimental to the amenity of local residents. The site contained a warehouse and the existing tenant stated that the company wished to relocate to new premises. The appellants stated that contrary to the council’s claim it did not comprise a category 1 employment building due to its age, style, condition, poor access for articulated lorries and floor heights. They highlighted the different levels between the building elements with parts of the original Victorian structure still visible. The proposed replacement unit would be slightly larger than the current building and the appellants were confident that it would be let, offering to preclude occupation of the student accommodation until a Class B8 use was secured. The inspector agreed that at best the building fell within category 2 in line with the majority of premises within the borough. It was somewhat dilapidated with damp penetration and restricted accessibility. In contrast, the replacement unit would be accessible by fork lift truck. He was persuaded that the new accommodation would have a greater chance of being let, delivering an equal or greater number of jobs. The council’s further claim that the scheme did not deliver an adequate mix of housing and would involve an over-concentration of student accommodation was also rejected. The site was not allocated for housing development and the scheme would not jeopardise the house building targets set out in the core strategy. Nor was there any indication that the land would come forward for affordable housing if the appeal were dismissed. The site lay within a mixed use area, adjacent to an industrial area and occupied a sustainable location. In his view, the scheme would not create a ‘tipping point’ which would generate an unacceptable concentration of students to the detriment of residents living in the area or the social balance within the community.
100-075-142 2011 WREXHAM
ALLOWED
A therapy room at a nursing home in a north Wales green barrier was held by an inspector to comprise an important facility which would have little impact on the openness of the site. The home occupied a parkland area associated with a former country house which had been demolished many years previously. It provided residential accommodation for people with a wide range of medical conditions including brain acquired injury, dementia and mental illness and contained approximately 250 residents. The pavilion and therapy room would comprise a freestanding building occupying 280m2 which would provide facilities for group sessions, a small hair and beauty salon, cultural and arts events and activities. Given the proposed building’s limited height and size, with a muted appearance and low profile, the inspector decided that it would sit unobtrusively within the parkland setting. Thus, although its presence would result in some reduction in openness this would not be significant. It would not increase the capacity of the nursing home and would complement and enhance facilities within what was a sizeable residential community, enhancing the quality of life for many residents, increasing their well-being and self-esteem. These factors were given substantial weight by the inspector who allowed the appeal.
100-075-156 2011 LONDON
DISMISSED
The change of use of the ground floor of a five storey building in southwest London to retail use was rejected because it would entail the loss of employment premises and would prejudice the vitality and viability of town centres. There were flats on the upper floors of the building. The planning permission for the block allowed A2 or B1 uses on the ground floor but this had never been implemented. An inspector observed that the site was over 100m from the nearest local shopping parade and about 500m to the town centre and so was unrelated to any designated shopping area. A core strategy policy indicated that out of town retail development was not usually considered appropriate in the borough in line with the London Plan. A development plan document policy stated that the use of employment land for other uses would only be permitted where there was satisfactory evidence of completion, over an extended period of time, of a full and proper marketing exercise of the site at realistic prices. The supporting text indicated that this would normally be two years. The appellants maintained that the property had been marketed since 2009 for A2/B1 purposes but that the only expressions of interest had been from people wanting the premises for retail use. The inspector noted that the appellant company had acquired the premises in 2008 after construction work had commenced and that it was advertised by way of a site board. However, a more vigorous marketing campaign by commercial agents had only begun in February 2010. Therefore, some time less than the minimum two years had elapsed in terms of the more active campaign. Whilst it was argued that the appellants had revised their expectation of profits significantly downwards since acquiring the site and would be open to offers from prospective occupiers, it was not clear as to the terms on which the unit had been marketed, whether the asking price had ever been reduced or that it was realistic in the current economic climate. The inspector was not persuaded that the marketing campaign which had been conducted had clearly demonstrated that the site was not likely to be used for employment purposes. She concluded that the retail use of the site would mean a loss of employment land and retail development unrelated to a designated centre. This would not accord with national and local planning policies aimed at achieving sustainable economic development and maintaining the vitality and viability of town centres.
100-075-159 2011 WILTSHIRE
DISMISSED
A request by Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd to allow two night-time deliveries to one of its stores in Wiltshire and opposed by a council on noise grounds was denied due to the adverse impact on some local residents. The appellants sought permission to preclude deliveries between 11pm and 7am each day apart from a maximum of two deliveries per night between these times. They claimed that some deliveries were needed before 7am to ease logistical problems at the store thereby improving the shopping experience. If the suggestion was unacceptable they requested allowing deliveries from 6am each day. The inspector noted the appellants’ acceptance that unauthorised night-time deliveries had occurred in the past and this was borne out by letters of objection from local residents and council investigations. The appellants, he noted, relied on a recent government publication which promoted the potential benefits of introducing quiet out of hours deliveries and noise from such deliveries at the appeal site indicated that they would not breach world health organisation guidelines. However, although the submitted evidence tended to confirm this view the inspector held that this was not determinative given the number of residential properties which lay in close proximity and the complaints which had been made historically. He therefore decided to err on the side of caution and give the benefit of the doubt to the council and local residents, rejecting a trial run given the history of complaints.
100-075-168 2011 SURREY
DISMISSED
An inspector refused to issue a LDC for residential use of land outside a town in Surrey, deciding that the site had been abandoned. A bungalow had formerly existed on the land but a fire in 1978 had rendered it uninhabitable. Permission had been granted in 1983 for its demolition and the erection of a dwelling. This permission lapsed in 1988 and an application in that year for a new dwelling was turned down. A further application was made in 2008 for the erection of a bungalow but this was also turned down. The committee report advised that there was no evidence of a dwelling on the site, that the residential use had been abandoned, and that the site should be regarded as vacant land. The inspector noted that the considerations to be taken into account in deciding whether a use had been abandoned were set out in Trustees of Castell y Mynach Estate v Secretary of State for Wales and Taff Ely Borough Council [1985]. These were the period of non-use, the physical condition of the land, whether there had been any other use and the owner’s intentions. The factors carried equal weight and no individual factor was decisive. He recorded that there had been a lengthy period of non-use, the site had blended back into the landscape and there had been no other use. The appellant’s case depended on the evidence of the owner’s intention. The inspector explained that the test was an objective one based on a consideration of all the circumstances and was not simply a subjective consideration of the owner’s state of mind. He considered the appellant’s sworn statement that the land had been owned by his family for more than 40 years, was his family home, and that its residential use was never intended to be abandoned either by himself or by other members of his family. The inspector noted, however, that the only objective evidence of the owner’s intentions was the submission of the planning applications. In the absence of any other evidence of the owner’s intention, he considered that it was reasonable in 2008 for the council to conclude that the residential use had been abandoned.
100-075-169 2011 LEEDS
DISMISSED
The signalisation of a traffic junction serving a Leeds supermarket was rejected, an inspector deciding that any improvement in road safety would be outweighed by delays to buses. The inspector found that the scheme would be likely to cause significant delays to buses on the main road and that as new development in the area materialized these delays would worsen. He acknowledged that there would be some highway benefits although these would be limited and would be unlikely to significantly improve the safety record of the relevant section of the road as a whole. Bearing in mind the money being spent on a bus corridor scheme specifically to reduce journey times along the road and the aim of national and local policy to promote and prioritise the use of public transport, he concluded that the benefits of the scheme did not outweigh its disadvantages in terms of delays to bus passengers. The appellant stated that the proposal had arisen from a view that the Netto store’s poor performance was explained by difficult access for drivers and pedestrians. However, the evidence of the significant increase in traffic flows since its conversion to Asda format suggested to the inspector that this was not the case.
100-075-170 2011 GREATER MANCHESTER
ALLOWED
A council in Greater Manchester which turned down a telecommunications mast on health grounds was faced with paying costs to the appellants. Vodafone and O2 proposed an 18m high joint operator telecommunications tower with six antennas in the corner of a cricket ground alongside the club house. It would be similar in appearance to an installation some 80m away, also in the cricket ground, but near to a leisure centre car park. The council feared that there would be a clustering effect that would give rise to radiation levels which would be harmful to the health of surrounding residents and users of the leisure facilities. It was said that the proposal would be the sixth mast within a half mile radius. The inspector explained that it was the government’s view that if a proposed mobile phone base station met the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority to consider the health aspects further. The appellant companies’ ICNIRP certificate confirmed that the installation met the guidelines. The inspector considered that the presence of two telecommunications masts within 80m of each other was by no means an exceptional occurrence. Nor could he imagine that the combined effects of masts from adjacent cells would approach levels of radiation that would harm health because that would negate the idea of a cell system. He noted that the nearest dwelling was some 50m away and acknowledged that there was an extensive children’s play area, sports areas and the leisure centre within the vicinity. Nevertheless, he gave substantial weight to the advice in PPG8 and the firm commitment of the ICNIRP certificate. As there was no substantive evidence other than anecdote and a generalised fear on the matter, he concluded that there were no special circumstances that would outweigh the PPG8 advice. The inspector noted that the planning committee had refused the application against the planning officer’s recommendation. He could find no rational explanation as to how the decision had been reached to refuse the application contrary to PPG8 advice and the requirements of the development plan. He concluded that a full award of costs was warranted.
100-075-292 2011 NORFOLK
DISMISSED
Plans by two mobile phone operators to erect a 12.5m high telecommunications mast in a residential area in Norfolk were dashed due to the adverse impact it would have on the character of the area. An inspector noted that the mast would be sited at the junction of two roads. The surrounding area was predominantly residential, with the mast viewed against an adjacent park. In his opinion, it would be sited in a prominent position and would be taller than nearby trees in the park. It would also be noticeably bulkier than street lighting and telegraph poles in the vicinity and consequently would undermine the character and appearance of the locality. Therefore, while there was no evidence that the mast would undermine public health, the adverse visual impact justified rejecting the appeal, the inspector being unconvinced by the appellants’ claims that more suitable locations were not available.
100-075-297 2011 CORNWALL
DISMISSED
An inspector refused to issue a LDC for the use of three bedrooms at a house in Cornwall for bed and breakfast use, supporting the council’s decision to issue a certificate for the use of two bedrooms instead. The large house had seven bedrooms, two on the ground floor and five on the first floor. Both ground floor bedrooms and two on the first floor were used by the appellant’s family. The other three first floor bedrooms, two of which were en suite, were used by guests staying on a bed and breakfast basis. The application for a LDC had sought to establish whether the use of three bedrooms would constitute a material change of use for the purposes of section 55 of the Act. This had been made in the appellant’s belief that the council operated an informal rule whereby 50 per cent of the number of bedrooms in a family house used for bed and breakfast purposes would not amount to a material change of use. The council indicated, however, that it did not apply a simple 50 per cent rule when determining what would or would not be de minimis because such a rule would be too simplistic. The appellant suggested that bed and breakfast letting was consistent and compatible with residential use and claimed that the only perceived difference between the impact of guests and those of himself and his family would be parking and vehicular movements. The inspector, however, agreed with the council that other factors should be taken into account, including the size of the rooms and other facilities available for use by guests. He noted that the bedrooms used for bed and breakfast were doubles and that guests could use the facilities in a leisure building and a tennis court. He was satisfied that, as a matter of fact and degree, the use of three bedrooms for bed and breakfast purposes would not be ancillary to the use of the dwelling. The council’s refusal to grant a LDC in respect of three bedrooms for bed and breakfast use and grant of a certificate, instead, for the use of two double bedrooms as bed and breakfast was well-founded, he concluded.
100-075-309 2011 EDINBURGH
ALLOWED
The installation of a Victorian style shop front on a category C listed building in Edinburgh’s old town conservation area and world heritage site was secured with a reporter judging that it was to be preferred to the current art deco design. The council stated that the existing shop front was a rare example of improvements carried out in the old town part of the city in the 1930s. The appellant claimed that it would restore the frontage to match others in the parade and would remove a fascia which stood out like a sore thumb. The reporter decided that part of the existing shop front such as the curved windows were of real architectural interest. However, the overly deep fascia was out of character with others in the row which contained straight glass, traditional pilasters and doors close to the footway. He concluded that overall it would restore the rhythm to the row of shops and the appeal was allowed.
100-075-310 2011 LEEDS
ALLOWED
Following the High Court’s decision to quash the decision on a previous appeal, a second inspector decided that changes to an unauthorised building in the South Yorkshire green belt should be permitted in order to allow it to be used for agriculture. Planning permission had been granted for the change of use of a barn to create a one bedroom dwelling with subsequent approval for an extension. The barn was demolished, however, and work commenced on a new dwelling. An enforcement notice was upheld at appeal. The appellant applied to amend the design to allow the building to be used for agriculture, an initial appeal decision being quashed because in dismissing the case the inspector had taken an immaterial consideration into account. The second inspector decided that if the building were to be completed in accordance with the approved plans it could store small items of equipment, pesticides and sprays. In so concluding the inspector made it clear that the assessment had to be made on how the building was proposed to be altered rather than as it currently stood, noting that it would be reduced to single storey in height with window and door openings blocked up.
100-075-311 2011 NORFOLK
ALLOWED
An inspector deleted tailored commencement of development conditions attached to an outline permission for 22 flats in Norfolk, replacing them with standard conditions. The two conditions required that application for approval of reserved matters should be made within nine months, and that development should start within six months of the approval of the last of the reserved matters. The identical reasons for the conditions stated that the timing had been reduced to recognise the need to support a change in policy and the need to provide for an acceptable provision of affordable housing within the area. A newly adopted core strategy policy required affordable housing to be sought on all sites for five or more dwellings. The council had decided, however, that it would be inappropriate to seek any affordable housing units on the site and had granted permission without them. The inspector recorded that circular 11/95 required conditions only to be imposed where they satisfied all of six tests. The third test required the condition to be relevant to the development permitted. He pointed out that the development would not provide any affordable housing units so he found it difficult to conclude that the conditions were relevant to the development permitted. The sixth test required conditions to be reasonable in all other respects. He remarked that the economic climate in the UK was extremely uncertain and in general the market for development land and housing was poor. Whilst he found it understandable that the council would wish to see the development started as soon as possible, he concluded that in the current economic climate it would be unreasonable to require a developer to start the development within 15 months or so. Both conditions failed the test of reasonableness set out in the circular, he decided. The council explained that the conditions were aimed at preventing the site being land banked. Whilst the inspector understood why the council had taken what it considered a pragmatic approach and decided not to seek provision of affordable housing, he ruled that this did not overcome the impractical timescales imposed by the disputed conditions. He awarded costs against the council.
100-075-312 2011 BERKSHIRE
DISMISSED
Two appeals involving alternative layouts for six houses on a privately run visitor attraction in the Berkshire green belt were dismissed because the appellant had not demonstrated that the existing facility was unviable. The appellant stated that when the Shire horse and village life centre was open it had attracted 82,000 visitors per annum. During the 1990s this dropped to an average of 36,000 visitors and by 2010 it had fallen to 20,000 when it closed. He stated that attendance had to increase threefold in order to produce a viable business. Dismissing the appeals would mean that the site would become derelict. An inspector noted that the existing buildings appeared to be sound and in good condition and the business at one time had been viable. Although different uses had been explored these seemed to involve new buildings which were contrary to green belt policy. Although abandonment and dereliction were undesirable it was no means certain that this would be the outcome of dismissal of the appeals which involved inappropriate development. The existing use provided a recreational opportunity which was consistent with green belt policy. Despite the appeals involving a reduction in built development thereby having some benefit in terms of improving openness, housing was contrary to the purposes and objectives of green belts and the appeals failed.
100-075-313 2011 HAMPSHIRE
ALLOWED
Two companies were successful in securing the deletion of a condition which prevented the provision of trade counters within a mixed employment development in Hampshire, an inspector accepting that they would not undermine the council’s retail strategy. The council had imposed the condition on the basis that trade counters would undermine the vitality and viability of existing centres. It claimed that the permission allowed a range of Class B uses and removing the condition would encourage retail uses in an out of centre location. The appellants, however, simply wished to allow some flexibility in the range of industrial uses which could be attracted. The inspector decided that varying the condition would not trigger a material change of use since the units would still provide accommodation within Classes B1, B2 and B8. A Class A1 retail use would still require permission. Circular 11/95 advised that limiting trade counters could be burdensome and conditions should not normally be imposed unless to preclude or regulate a hazard or noise. Increasing the flexibility in occupation would not create town centre uses to which the sequential approach applied and no impact on existing centres had been demonstrated. The condition was deleted in its entirety, the inspector rejecting the appellants’ suggestion that it should be varied to restrict any ancillary showroom to not more than 25 per cent of the floorspace within any individual unit. Whether a retail use was ancillary fell outside the scope of the appeal.
100-075-314 2011 BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
DISMISSED
A development of four houses on an employment site in Hertfordshire was held to involve a piecemeal development of a larger area of land thereby undermining the council’s desire to secure affordable units. The council’s policy was to seek the provision of affordable housing on developments of five dwellings or more. The appellant argued, however, that this was unrealistic because adjoining land was not within the company’s control and consequently it could not be treated as a single entity. The council asserted that it was an attempt to circumvent the need for affordable housing provision by developing the wider area in a piecemeal way. An inspector noted that before 1940 the appeal site and adjoining land comprised a single entity and was then subdivided. Given its overall shape and the juxtaposition of the two areas she decided that it was reasonable and logical to treat it as a single site. While there was no suggestion that the appellant had attempted to artificially divide it, the council was not compelled to consider it independently. The larger site would trigger a requirement for affordable housing and allowing the appeal would inevitably reduce the total amount which could be delivered. In the absence of a contribution towards affordable housing the scheme was unacceptable despite the lack of conflict with employment land policies.
100-075-315 2011 LONDON
DISMISSED
The change of use of a vacant cinema within an entertainment and cultural complex in central London to a restaurant was held to be unacceptable without evidence that the existing use was no longer viable at an appropriate rent. The Trocadero facility was situated between Leicester Square and Piccadilly. The appellants proposed to change part of the basement and lower basement to a 900m2 restaurant. They explained that the leisure industry was changing with an amusement arcade, a museum and IMAX cinema all having closed and in the process of being replaced with a hotel, restaurants and retail uses. The conversion of the cinema had been approved by the council only on the basis of a scheme that retained the basement cinema as a community performance and arts space which would be let at a peppercorn rent. The permission had not been implemented, however. The appellants asserted that the cinema had been marketed since early 2006 and there was no interest in re-opening it at an appropriate market rent. The inspector decided that the marketing evidence was based on the premise of attracting an operator who would pay a market rent. However, this was very different from assessing whether an operator could be attracted at a peppercorn rent which might induce a tenant to take the space. Additionally, it was unclear how active the marketing campaign had been and under these circumstances it would adversely affect the provision of arts and culture facilities.
100-075-316 2011 ABERDEENSHIRE
DISMISSED
Despite a reporter concluding that a new village community in Aberdeenshire would have many interesting and attractive features, its location would involve an unsustainable form of development. The site lay in a rural area with sporadic development. The appellants proposed to erect 70 dwellings, five commercial units, a children’s nursery and allotments. They accepted that the scheme conflicted with countryside policies but relied on a general acceptance that new housing in the countryside would need to be provided. Local roads could accommodate the traffic and the siting next to a modern primary school would assist in assimilating the development into the local area. The report agreed that the landscaping scheme would enable the development to be assimilated into the countryside and this would also mitigate the impact on the primary school. The design had been developed with unusual thoroughness and would be an exemplar development which could no doubt be followed elsewhere. Unfortunately, these matters did not outweigh the inherent drawback of the site’s location with only a limited country bus service. Residents and workers would be substantially dependent on the use of private cars. This detracted from the more impressive aspects of the scheme, the reporter determined, finding that a submitted transport assessment was not convincing in demonstrating an ability to encourage non-car modes of transport.
100-075-317 2011 BERKSHIRE
ALLOWED
An overspill car park was permitted to support a group of commercial units in converted farm buildings in Berkshire on the basis that it would assist in maintaining their longer term viability. The appellants stated that at busy times there was inadequate parking and although initially being accessible by public transport, this no longer applied. They claimed that the existing businesses would not be able to grow if parking remained inadequate. In contrast, the council asserted that it would involve built development extending into the countryside and would provide parking in excess of its maximum standards. An inspector decided that the lack of alternative means of accessing the site was an important consideration and it would support local employment. The impact could be mitigated through an appropriate landscaping scheme and, in any event, the parking would not be prominent in the wider landscape due to trees and field boundaries.
100-075-318 2011 LANCASHIRE
ALLOWED
A condition preventing the use of a rural track in Lancashire as access to two barn conversions was removed, an inspector being satisfied that the use of a digital entry system would ensure that highway safety was maintained. The council had granted planning permission for the two residential barn conversions, one of which was occupied by the appellant’s daughter. The disputed condition stated that the track should be used for agricultural purposes only and should not be used by occupiers of the two dwellings. The appellant wished the condition to be altered to allow the installation of a digital entry system which would provide access to the occupiers but prevent unrestricted public use. The council and other objectors claimed that this system would not be effective or enforceable. The inspector observed that the proposed system would require drivers to stop and enter a code which would allow the automatic gates to open. The gates would then close after a set period of time. In his view, there was sufficient incentive for the occupiers of the two properties to restrict public access along the track which was narrow and would undermine the enjoyment of their dwellings if made more widely available to the general public. If the condition was breached the council could issue a breach of condition notice to rectify the situation. The condition was varied to require the installation and operation of a key-code system of entry and exit.
100-075-319 2011 LONDON
ALLOWED
An inspector allowed the siting of a bronze bust in a public garden in west London, despite council concern that the siting was inappropriate. The site was a small triangular garden set behind railings in Earls Court. The bronze bust of a young woman was by a nationally recognised sculptor and was intended to represent the independent lives of young people who had embarked on their careers whilst living in the area. It would be mounted on a stone pillar and plinth. The inspector considered that the sculpture would be easily visible from the eye level of passers-by despite its location behind the railings. He noted that the garden had a central concrete circle which was capable of accommodating a piece of art and considered that in its empty, rather plain form, it could be argued to detract from the garden. He judged that the bust would enhance the garden and provide a focal point to the space. He acknowledged that the sculpture was not large and would have a background dominated by advertisement hoardings. That did not mean, however, that the sculpture was somehow inappropriate or that it was not capable of enhancing the garden space. The council considered that the garden was an inappropriate and demeaning site for the sculpture and wished to see it sited somewhere else. The inspector reasoned that there might be a better site but that was not reason to dismiss the appeal. If a better location was found it would simply mean that permission on the garden site would remain unimplemented.
100-075-320 2011 WEST SUSSEX
DISMISSED
In rejecting claims that earth bunds erected at a cricket club within the South Downs national park were permitted development and assisted in reducing traffic noise, an inspector determined that they undermined the character of the area. Two bunds had been erected and were comprised of earth and crushed rubble with some glass and plastic intermixed. The appellants stated that they were permitted under Class A of Part 2 to Schedule 2 of the GPDO 1995. This permitted minor operations including the erection or construction of a means of enclosure. Alternatively, they alleged that permission should be granted for their retention because it assisted in reducing traffic noise from a busy road and prevented traffic from crashing onto the playing pitch. The inspector stated that they did not comprise an enclosure and one of the bunds exceeded the maximum height limit of one metre where it fronted a highway as specified in Class A. Both bunds could be viewed from public footpaths and they appeared as contrived and discordant features in the landscape. There was little evidence to substantiate the noise and highway safety claims or that the bunds would reduce the number of balls being struck out of the ground.
100-075-321 2011 STAFFORDSHIRE
ALLOWED
The retention of a block of stables in a paddock within the Staffordshire green belt was supported by an inspector who concluded that it was not inappropriate development. The council claimed that the miniature ponies kept on the land were kept as pets and consequently could not be considered to provide publicly accessible outdoor sport and recreation in the green belt. However, this approach to interpreting green belt policy was rejected by the inspector who noted that the courts did not make a distinction between proposals for private or public recreational purposes. It was appropriate that the animals had shelter which was essential irrespective of their size and private enjoyment of the ponies by the appellant. The block was the minimum size necessary to meet the requirements and consequently the development was not inappropriate.