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.
  
100-068-570 WARWICK View PDF
LAND ADJOINING BERICOTE COTTAGE, BERICOTE ROAD, BLACKDOWN, ROYAL LEAMINGTON SPA, WARWICKSHIRE
Football and cricket pitches for black and minority ethnic youngsters in the west Midlands were rejected after an inspector found no very special circumstances to justify the development in the green belt. The appellants proposed to construct football pitches, an outdoor training area and a cricket pitch over a significant proportion of the six hectare site. In addition, a 500m2 building would be erected containing changing rooms, first aid facilities, a kitchen, assembly and training area, an office and meeting room. They stated that these were all essential facilities since the club served over 200 young people and met the football foundation’s guidelines. At peak periods during the football season approximately 100 people would be on site with fewer numbers of cricket days, they alleged, concluding that the facility was widely supported by a range of sporting and recreational organisations and the local NHS trust. The inspector decided that even if all the proposed changing rooms were essential, the assembly and training area at 150m2 was not genuinely required for the playing of outdoor sport. Although it might be desirable for team talks and coaching, such a large space was not required, he held, and as a consequence, when coupled with the extensive parking areas, service yards and walls, it would be contrary to national advice on green belt development. Although very special circumstances had been pleaded including improving the health and wellbeing of young people, these did not outweigh the harm to green belt openness and the visual amenity of the locality, he concluded.
100-068-573 SWALE View PDF
GORE FARM, THE BARNYARD, OAK LANE, UPCHURCH, SITTINGBOURNE, KENT
Various enforcement notices directed at a range of unauthorised development at a visitor centre in Kent were quashed after an inspector decided that the complex was important to local tourism. The enforcement notices required the removal of a marquee, raised decking and an extension to a car park. The appellants stated that the notice referring to the marquee was incorrect because it alleged a material change of use as opposed to the erection of a building. They argued that it was fundamentally flawed and was incapable of being corrected. The inspector agreed that in the light of Cardiff Rating Authority v Guest Keen Baldwins Iron and Steel Co Ltd [1949] and Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Harrow London Borough Council [2000] that the marquee was a building and therefore the notice should refer to unauthorised operational development. This correction could be made without causing injustice, he held, also ruling that it was not permitted development as claimed by the appellants. In examining the planning merits the inspector noted that the developments supported the wider complex containing a farm shop, gift shop, delicatessen, garden centre, bar and restaurant. It also provided access to farm animals, nature walks and attracted tourists and local residents from a wide area. The appellants argued that the enterprise could reach its full potential in two years if the developments were permitted. The benefits of allowing the appeals significantly outweighed the limited visual harm, he concluded.
100-068-578 EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE View PDF
THE LANGDON HOTEL, PEMBROKE TERRACE, BRIDLINGTON, EAST YORKSHIRE
The conversion of an east Yorkshire seaside hotel to 14 flats was allowed because it would drive up the quality of remaining bed spaces in the town. The local plan identified the terrace as being part of a designated area for holiday accommodation protection. However, a draft area action plan suggested a very different approach to tourism development in the defined area. The thrust of the plan was that the desire to drive up the standard of town centre holiday accommodation was being thwarted by the sheer number of bed spaces of varying quality. Given its very detailed and comprehensive evidence base the inspector determined that the action plan was a very significant material consideration. The council argued that although residential conversions might be acceptable in back street locations the terrace ought to retain its holiday uses because of its prominence on the sea front. The inspector observed, however, that the poor external appearance of some holiday premises in the locality had a damaging impact on the area and was testimony to the difficulties being experienced in this traditional sector of the tourism market. He accepted that the move away from hotel use might have some effect on the look of the street frontage but, taking into account the lively and colourful appearance of apartments in other conversions nearby, he did not consider that the appeal proposal would be detrimental to the perception of the terrace as part of a holiday area.
100-068-579 WILTSHIRE View PDF
LAND AT HORNCHURCH ROAD, BOWERHILL, MELKSHAM, WILTSHIRE SN12
A proposal to erect 27 affordable dwellings within a large scale residential development in Wiltshire was held to be unacceptable because it would potentially conflict with the terms of a legal agreement retaining it for a local centre. A development brief stated that the 0.4ha site should be retained for a local centre which could also include a community hall. A subsequent section 106 obligation accompanying an outline permission granted in 2000 stated that the landowner should use all reasonable endeavours to market or dispose of the site as a local centre with the agreement having no effect five years after the first occupation of the last building within the wider residential development. The inspector held that it was impossible for him to say what form of marketing took place because there was an absence of evidence on this matter. Certainly, little marketing had taken place after mid 2007 when the owners were in discussion with a housing association about the delivery of affordable units on the land. Moreover, if the last remaining dwellings had been occupied in mid 2005, any marketing would have occurred for only two out of the five years assumed in the legal agreement. If any dwelling had remained unoccupied after July 2005 it was also possible that the agreement remained in force at the time of the hearing into the current appeal in which case it would be premature to grant permission, he ruled. In his opinion, no meaningful consideration had been given into the provision of other types of community facilities and the parish council stated that the local community believed that additional facilities were required. The parish council had not been consulted by the appellants and while the provision of 27 affordable homes would be of benefit, the section 106 obligation required the owners to seek the sale of the land for community purposes and this had not been adequately discharged, he held.
100-068-588 KENSINGTON & CHELSEA View PDF
21 HARRINGTON ROAD, LONDON SW7 3EU
A new building for a language school with residential accommodation above in southwest London was allowed despite the council’s misgivings about the design. An inspector opined that whilst the existing Victorian building had some pleasing features its demolition could not be readily resisted. He noted that there was no substantive objection to the replacement building in terms of its height and mass, which would be similar to the existing building. However, the council’s view was that what was proposed represented an unsatisfactory blend of contemporary and traditional design elements. The inspector observed, however, that there was no prevailing style or pattern in the area that demanded adherence. He opined that whilst attempting to incorporate local architectural references, the building represented a visually acceptable and contemporary redevelopment of the site that would add to the locally diverse palette of building styles and types. He recognised that considerable effort had been made to achieve this objective whilst delivering a building that would also function considerably more efficiently and satisfactorily in terms of its internal arrangements. It would provide for greatly more efficient movement within by use of stairs and a lift and would therefore be more inclusive. Its design would also permit sustainable features to be incorporated delivering benefits in terms of energy efficiency.
100-068-589 CHESHIRE EAST View PDF
LAND TO THE SOUTH WEST OF OLD MILL ROAD AND TO THE NORTH WEST OF THE WHEELOCK BY-PASS, SANDBACH, CHESHIRE
A house builder in Cheshire persuaded an inspector that only seven per cent of the dwellings it proposed to build should be affordable since a higher level of provision would render the scheme unviable. Planning permission had been granted in 2007 for a high density scheme involving 70 flats and a section 106 obligation required that 18 of the units should be affordable. The appellants acquired the land in 2006 and remediation had been commenced in 2008. However, by the time this was complete the economy had gone into recession and the price of flats was particularly badly affected, they claimed. Accordingly, they proposed a development of 43 units involving detached dwellings, mews houses and apartments of which only three would be affordable. The council stated that its local plan supported the provision of 25 per cent affordable dwellings and 50 per cent low cost market houses. It argued that there was no need to secure the site’s development in the short term thereby giving time for the housing market to recover and allowing a higher provision of affordable units. This approach had been supported by another inspector at appeal, they asserted. The inspector noted that the appellants’ viability appraisal had not been seriously challenged by the council. Although the council claimed that a five year supply of deliverable housing sites existed, he concluded that this did not appear to be the case and this was a material consideration which weighed in favour of allowing the appeal. In the event that the appeal was rejected the appellants stated that the site would be mothballed and since it was not possible to estimate when economic conditions would recover to allow between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of the units to be affordable, these factors also weighed in the scheme’s favour, he opined. It would enable the regeneration of the site and enhance the visual amenity of the area and despite the need for affordable housing, he concluded that dismissing the appeal would mean that no market or affordable housing would be delivered within the foreseeable future.
100-068-464 SOMERSET CC View PDF
FIELD OS REF 6931 (PART), PURITON ROAD, PAWLETT, BRIDGEWATER, SOMERSET TA6 4RS
Plans by an appellant to develop a Somerset field as a waste recycling centre were decisively rejected by an inspector who held that the scheme would be unsustainable. The inspector noted that the proposal involved the crushing, screening and recycling of concrete and builders rubble. In his opinion, the siting of a new waste management facility remote from any main urban area would increase rather than decrease the number and length of lorry journeys. A site within or on the edge of an urban area would assist in minimising “waste miles”, he concluded. It would also have an adverse impact on the character of the site replacing a rural scene with new surfaces and structures, a widened access, plant and machinery and stockpiled materials. The construction of an earth bund almost four metres high would also add an incongruous and intrusive feature into the predominantly flat landscape, he judged, which when coupled to the potentially adverse impact on local residents, counted against allowing the appeal.
100-068-465 ST ALBANS View PDF
CUTTS COTTAGE, AMWELL FARM, DOWN GREEN LANE, WHEATHAMPSTEAD, HERTFORDSHIRE
A proposal for a replacement dwelling in the Hertfordshire green belt was refused, an inspector rejecting the appellants’ argument that basement floorspace should be discounted. It was proposed to replace a ‘rather forlorn’ bungalow with a new residence which would retain a similar single storey height. However, it would be a substantial structure with two wings enclosing an open courtyard built around a sunken patio. This would provide light to an extensive basement. The inspector asserted that the erection of a replacement dwelling accommodating roughly five times the floorspace of the original would be materially larger and inimical to the openness and rural character of the green belt. He accepted that there might be circumstances where the provision of basement accommodation would have little effect on openness. However, the bungalow was remote and, given the proximity of very large dwellings nearby, he judged that the cumulative impact of the proposal would be to suburbanise the rural scene. The appellants also claimed that the dwelling would be only marginally larger than the existing dwelling when extensions, a double garage and pool house that could be constructed as permitted development and which benefited from certificates of lawful development were taken into consideration. The inspector opined, however, that this fallback position might be unrealistic. The configuration of the bungalow would undermine the utility of such extensions and he very much doubted that it would be financially viable.
100-068-466 PLYMOUTH View PDF
UNIT 1, ST MARYS BRIDGE, PLYMOUTH ROAD, PLYMPTON, PLYMOUTH PL7 4JP
The installation of an automated telling machine (ATM) at a Tesco store in Devon which was opposed by the local authority on visual, crime and highway grounds was approved, an inspector failing to be convinced that any significant harm would arise. The ATM had already been installed, he noted, and while not visually attractive he held that it was not out of scale or obtrusive relative to the store’s front elevation. It was anchored by ballistic protection, an anti-skimming and locking system and was visible from a main road. Although the police authority would prefer the machine to be smaller, he concluded that there was little evidence to show that it would increase the risk or fear of crime. There were double yellow lines preventing parking immediately in front of the machine, he recorded, and due to its proximity to a roundabout he held that any illegal parking would be too dangerous, and unnecessary given the presence of a car park 40 metres distant.
100-068-467 WIRRAL View PDF
STABLES, STRAWBERRY FIELDS, STRAWBERRY LANE, THORNTON HOUGH, WIRRAL
An appellant’s claim in favour of the retention of a large caravan at an equestrian facility in the Wirral green belt failed to secure the support of an inspector who decided that it would materially reduce the openness of the area. He noted that the caravan contained three bedrooms, a shower room and toilet, and a kitchen and mess room for use by the appellant and his family. The appellant, however, already lived in a house nearby and, in his opinion, the need for a mess room serving the day-to-day needs of the facility had not been proven. Although the equestrian use preserved the openness of the area the caravan did not, he opined, also concluding that it failed to maintain the essentially rural character of the locality.
100-068-468 ISLE OF WIGHT View PDF
SEAHAVEN, SEAGROVE BAY, SEAVIEW, ISLE OF WIGHT P034 5BW
The owner of a vacant café on the Isle of Wight successfully argued that it should be converted to a sitting room linked to his dwelling, persuading an inspector that the commercial use was not viable. The premises were located at a secluded beach and the council stated that the use should be retained because it was an important leisure and tourism facility. In contrast, the appellant asserted that the beach had relatively few visitors due to its remoteness, the state of the tide and changeable weather conditions. He claimed that the business had closed in 2009 and he had no intention of re-opening it because of the poor trading levels achieved in the three previous years. The inspector had no reason to doubt the information contained in the submitted accounts, noting that the profit from a seasonal café was likely to be small. The property was in need of substantial renovation and repair and due to its proximity to the sea any improvements would have to be flood resistant, thereby increasing the potential costs. The marketing campaign conducted by the appellant demonstrated that there was no readily apparent interest in potential occupiers and the council had not provided information on the importance of the facility to the local economy or in attracting tourists to the beach. The lack of commercial viability outweighed the loss of the café, he decided.
100-068-469 PETERBOROUGH View PDF
NO. 42 CHURCH STREET, NORTHBOROUGH PE6 9BN
The construction of a large chalet bungalow within the grounds of a grade II listed building in a Peterborough conservation area and formerly owned by a famous 19th century poet was dismissed because it was unsympathetic and out of scale. The scheme involved the construction of an L-shaped dwelling with five bedrooms and four bathrooms on the first floor and a dining/family room and other facilities on the ground floor. Ten dormer windows would be inserted into the roof slopes, an inspector noted, and a detached double garage would be erected at the front. The listed cottage, its garden and surrounding landscape were important to the former poet and his family, his work and his wellbeing and the scheme, by introducing such a large and unsympathetic building, would fail to maintain its historic importance, he concluded. The small cottage garden with paddock beyond would be changed into two distinct residential curtilages and the addition of decorative landscaping and domestic paraphernalia would add to the harm, undermining the rural character of the conservation area, he decided.
100-068-471 ENFIELD View PDF
147 ST MARYS ROAD, EDMONTON, LONDON, N9 8NR
The use of a dwellinghouse in north London as a residential care home for five adults was denied permission on the basis that it would involve an excessive amount of activity and disturbance. The four bedroom end of terrace dwelling would accommodate five mothers recovering form substance abuse. Between two and three staff would attend during the day, with one staying overnight and therapists would visit twice a week. A single storey outbuilding in the rear garden would be used for counselling. The appellant stated that the property could accommodate a large family which would have the same level of impact as the proposed development. The inspector decided that there were material differences between the two uses. The care home would attract members of staff and others. The mothers were also likely to be visited by their children and family and friends which, when coupled with the use of the outbuilding for counselling sessions, was likely to generate a much greater level of coming and goings, she held. An institutional use would also affect the quiet residential character of the road and this added to her reasons to dismiss the appeal.
100-068-472 NEW FOREST View PDF
BEACH HUTS NOS 1 & 2, HORDLE CLIFF, MILFORD ON SEA, HAMPSHIRE
An inspector allowed the replacement of two beach huts on the Hampshire coast with a single large one despite council concerns that it would be out of character with its setting. The site was at the end of a line of huts and the council’s main concerns were that no gap would exist between the huts and that the replacement hut would appear larger. However, the inspector saw that there was a variety of shapes, sizes and design of huts along the seashore, including large huts. The hut would not be seen from above the cliff, and on the steps descending to the beach the roof would visually merge with the roofs of other huts. The same would apply when viewed from the beach. The development would be appropriate and sympathetic to its setting, the inspector decided.
100-068-473 WAKEFIELD View PDF
STYLE BAR, 13 BEASTFAIR, PONTEFRACT, WEST YORKSHIRE, WF8 1AL
An inspector expressed his concern at the change of use of a wine bar to a lap dancing club noting that the change had failed to maintain the vitality of a west Yorkshire shopping centre. The property lay along a main shopping street within a conservation area. A wine bar had been permitted in 2003. However, the appellant changed the use and replaced a glazed front with solid timber panels preventing views directly into the premises and added a stage with a central pole. The lap dancing bar opened between 9pm and 4am but was closed on Mondays to Wednesdays. The inspector noted that permission for the alterations to the shop front had been refused by the council and he agreed that the solid panels had a detrimental impact on the character of the conservation area and the vitality of the shopping frontage. The hours of opening added to the inappropriateness of the use, he opined, since it would generate no activity during normal shopping hours. This impact could not be mitigated by the use of a condition requiring the provision of a glazed frontage, he decided, since no details of the acceptability or appropriateness of this change were before him. In his view a sui generis use such as a lap dancing bar was inappropriate to the historic nature of the town centre and contrary to policies intended to maintain its vitality and viability.
100-068-474 KIRKLEES View PDF
22 CROSS CHURCH STREET, HUDDERSFIELD HD1 2PT
The change of use of a shop to a hot food takeaway in west Yorkshire, opposed by the local police authority, was rejected by an inspector who was concerned about the potential for it to contribute towards anti-social behaviour. The police stated that there were problems of crime, anti-social behaviour and disturbance within the locality of the appeal site. They had recorded 56 offences within the area over a four month period in 2009 with over half occurring on the street along which the premises lay. Incidents occurred from 9pm with a significant increase after 1am as public houses and clubs closed. The inspector noted that the appellant proposed to close at 1am at weekends and, in her view, it would encourage people to linger for longer periods. Although the appellant did not propose to sell alcohol, this would not affect the behaviour of customers who had already visited pubs and clubs in the area, she opined. The police and local authority were making concerted efforts to restrict and reduce licensing hours for the sale of alcohol and she considered that adding a further late night takeaway would undermine this strategy.
100-068-475 WEST DORSET View PDF
MIDDLE FARM, LONG BREDY, DORCHESTER DT2 9HW
Notwithstanding claims by an appellant that the government supported the provision of small wind turbines, an inspector decided that a 16 metre high structure in a Dorset AONB would undermine the scenic qualities of an important valley. The appellant stated that the hub would be 12 metres in height with four metre long blades and the scheme would have an installed capacity of 10kw. He drew attention to the government’s publication in November 2009 on revising permitted development rights for small scale renewable energy schemes. This, he claimed, stated that stand-alone wind turbines with a maximum hub height of 15 metres and blades of three metres in length could become permitted development and this did not exclude AsONB. The inspector decided, however, that the publication could be afforded only limited weight because it remained a consultation document and had not led to any change in permitted development rights. In any event, he noted that the document sought to limit blade length to three metres to reduce the swept area and minimise the impact on visual amenity. The proposal before him involved four metre long blades which would have a greater impact, he concluded. In any event the site lay in a good quality landscape and there were few vertical elements in the local landscape. The valley had an attractive and sweeping appearance and the turbine would appear as a conspicuous and intrusive feature, the two electricity poles in an adjoining field detracting from rather than adding to the underlying character. They were considerably shorter than the proposed turbine, he noted, and to require the appellant to secure their removal and bury the cables underground in an attempt to reduce the visual impact of the proposed turbine was outside the scope of a planning condition, he held.
100-068-476 LAMBETH View PDF
THE STEAM ENGINE, 41-42 COSSER STREET, LONDON, SE1 7BU
The continued use of pub accommodation in south London as a backpackers’ hostel was allowed despite concerns about intensity of use and concentration of facilities. There were four dormitories, a shower room and two bathrooms on the first floor of the pub, with access being gained off an external courtyard. Sleeping accommodation was provided for 42 people arranged in triple bunk beds, four in two of the rooms and another three in the other two rooms. The inspector saw that for many people the concentration of sleeping accommodation, the limited availability of bathrooms, toilets and showers and the general lack of space for relaxation would be completely unacceptable. He held, however, that different considerations applied to a backpackers’ hostel. He reasoned that for users it might be a great place to visit, providing backpacker accommodation in London in a very accessible location.
100-068-477 HILLINGDON View PDF
LAND TO THE REAR OF NOS. 63,65 AND 67 LOWLANDS ROAD, EASTCOTE, PINNER, MIDDLESEX
The erection of a detached dwelling on parts of three gardens in Middlesex was judged to involve an unacceptable form of development which would harm the local distinctive character of the area. An inspector noted that the government’s revision to PPS3 on housing in June 2010 made clear that private residential gardens were no longer classified as previously developed land. Previous development proposals had been rejected on the basis that they would harm the character and appearance of the area and undermine the living conditions of local residents. In his opinion, the extensive back gardens and the contribution they made to local distinctiveness effectively ruled out development of the type proposed by the appellant. The inspector disagreed with the observations of one of his colleagues that it was capable, in principle, of accommodating a detached dwelling. He opined that the dwelling would intrude into the openness of the gardens and undermine their contribution to the suburban character of the locality.
100-068-478 BASILDON View PDF
LAND ADJOINING 6 SOUTHERNHAY, BASILDON, ESSEX, SS14 1EL
In dismissing an appeal involving the erection of commercial units for a temporary period in an Essex town centre, an inspector decided that while they would not prejudice the redevelopment of the area, their design was inappropriate. The appeal site lay within an area covered by a town centre development framework which indicated that the land would be redeveloped in the period after 2030. A previous appeal involving the erection of shops and flats had failed on the basis that granting a permanent permission would prejudice the long term redevelopment of the town centre. However, the appellants sought permission for a temporary permission lasting a period of 11 years, arguing that a lead developer had not been indentified and therefore it was unlikely that the regeneration of the area would occur before 2030. The inspector agreed that this appeared to be the case, noting that although a renaissance partnership responsible for implementing the framework asserted that development would occur before 2021, the absence of a lead developer made this unlikely. However, although the scheme was in outline, he judged that the proposed design, involving flats roofs, was unprepossessing. It would have a functional appearance which would not enhance the quality of the area and the temporary nature of any permission did not outweigh the need for good design, he concluded.
100-068-479 NORTH SOMERSET View PDF
ANITAS NURSERY, MARTCOMBE ROAD, EASTON-IN-GORDANO, BRISTOL, BS20 0QE
In deciding that the conversion of an agricultural building in the Bristol green belt should be denied permission due to an inadequate access, an inspector nonetheless concluded that the council had misapplied national policy which justified a partial award of costs in favour of the appellants. The council had granted planning permission for the erection of a building to be used as a store in connection with an adjoining nursery. The appellants proposed to convert this building into a tea room ancillary to the nursery use. They claimed that there would be no external changes to the building and therefore the use was compatible with green belt policy. They also affirmed that the traffic generation based on a tea room containing nine tables would not be excessive and would not undermine highway safety. In respect of the first issue the inspector agreed that the building was of permanent and substantial construction and capable of being converted without major reconstruction. Its form and bulk were in keeping with the surrounding area and no external alterations were proposed. Accordingly, he held that the scheme complied with green belt policy concluding that although the council asserted that it was an attempt to circumvent the planning system, the building had been permitted and was currently in storage use in accordance with the planning permission. With regard to the second issue he concluded that the 60mph speed limit on a main road meant that a visibility splay closer to 215 metres, and not 160 metres as claimed by the appellants, should be achieved in either direction at the access into the site. However, in one direction the splay was only 135 metres and the lack of accidents in front of the site did not mean that none would occur in future, he opined. The proposed tea room was likely to generate more traffic movements than predicted by the appellants and accordingly he decided that the potentially adverse effect on highway safety justified dismissing the appeal. In so concluding he held that the council had acted unreasonably in refusing permission on green belt grounds. It had already granted permission for the building and it could not argue that its erection was harmful to the openness of the area. The scheme fell squarely within paragraphs 3.7 to 3.10 of PPG2 on green belt development and there was no evidence to suggest that the scheme was an attempt to circumvent this policy, he ruled. The reason for refusal on green belt grounds was not precise nor carefully drafted, he concluded, and this had led the appellants to incur unnecessary expense in this aspect of their appeal. A partial award of costs was made in their favour.
100-068-480 FIFE View PDF
LAND TO NORTH OF CLUNY FARM, STRATHORE ROAD, THORNTON, KY1 4DN
A reporter decided that a council’s decision to grant planning permission for the use of land in Fife for ‘airsoft skirmishing’ could not be supported and rejected an appeal by the appellants against two conditions which had been imposed thereon. The appellants had applied for retrospective permission for the use which involved opponents using a variety of spring, electric or gas powered air guns firing spherical biodegradable pellets. Each game was marshalled and could involve 50 participants over a six hour period. In granting permission the council had imposed various conditions. One of these stated that no pyrotechnics could be used. The second stated that the use could only be conducted on every second Sunday throughout each year and on only two Saturdays per annum. The appellants appealed against the imposition of these conditions. The reporter stated that in accordance with section 48(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, the appeal allowed him to consider the whole of the planning permission and accordingly it was open to him to examine whether the scheme complied with the development plan in principle. No noise assessment had been submitted in support of the appeal to use pyrotechnics, he noted, and accordingly it was impossible to assess the impact on local residents. Although a condition on the permission sought to ensure that participants remained within the appeal site, the absence of a barrier meant that opponents might venture onto adjacent land used by horse riders and walkers. The visual impact on ancillary structures including a plywood fort also undermined the character of the area. Therefore, while he did not take the decision to dismiss the appeal lightly, the potential noise nuisance and negative environmental impact justified rejection of the whole scheme. Editor’s comment: This case is a salutary lesson for all those involved in the appeal process whether in Scotland or England and Wales. Although it is quite legitimate to appeal against conditions imposed on a planning permission, it is often forgotten that in so doing this allows a reporter or an inspector to consider the entire scheme afresh. A potentially more appropriate approach is to apply to vary or delete the proposed conditions via a new application thereby allowing the original permission to remain unaffected. While this requires the submission of a second application and involves an additional fee and time, it is often preferable to risking the loss of the entire permission.