Dismissed
The following appeals have been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate: -
(i) Appeal by Mr A Rogers against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit one bungalow and garage, demolition of four garages, old green house and a concrete compost container, at Lakeside, All Saints Lane, Sutton Courtenay. (SUT/5168/9-X). The decision to refuse planning permission was made by the Director under powers delegated to him.
The Inspector considered that the main issues in this case were whether the development proposed made adequate provision for access and the effect of the development proposed on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers.
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would result in a development with substandard access arrangements contrary to Local Plan Policy H16 in that the width of the access way would be insufficient to service the development in a safe manner and there would be the potential for vehicles being reversed across the footpath, representing a clear danger to pedestrian and highway safety.
The Inspector concluded that as the development would intensify both the vehicular and pedestrian use of the access drive, it would detract materially from the living conditions to which the occupiers of 14A and 16 Appleford Road might reasonably expect to be entitled to and would result in disturbance, overlooking and loss of privacy to those occupiers contrary to Local plan Policy H16.
The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal. No reference to costs was made with the appeal decision.
(ii) Appeal by Mr and Mrs Stoneham against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the partial demolition of the existing dairy and its conversion and change of use to form a single dwelling, Cold Harbour Farm, Hatford (HAT/15051/12). The decision to refuse planning permission was made by the Director under powers delegated to him.
The Inspector considered that there was little prospect of the proposed dwelling being occupied other than in a manner which rendered it dependent on access to a private car. The Inspector had considered that it was not possible to justify the proposed development in locational terms, but had nevertheless taken account of the intrinsic sustainability of the principle of the re-use of existing buildings. The Inspector concluded that within the complex of Coldharbour Farm there was no reason to suppose, in the event of the appeal being dismissed, the building would remain without a useful purpose. The Inspector therefore considered whether the appeal should succeed on the basis of limiting its occupation to guests or staff in association with the stable block. However in view of the accommodation which was clearly potentially available in the permitted conversion building, the Inspector could see no justification for a concession on these grounds.
The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal. No reference to costs was made with the appeal decision.
(iii) Appeal by the Trustees of FJ Gregory Discretionary settlement against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit outline permission for residential development (nine dwelling) (demolition of farm buildings) at the Causeway Farm, the Causeway, Steventon (STE/107/15-X). The decision to refuse permission was made by the Development Control Committee.
The Inspector considered that the main issue in this case was whether the proposed development would accord with housing policies in respect of development within the village of Steventon.
The Inspector considered that the site was not visually contained by well established strong physical features that clearly formed an integral part of the settlement. As such the development proposed would not comprise a natural completion of the existing pattern of development. The Inspector therefore concluded that the development proposed would represent a significant extension of the village boundary contrary to Local Plan Policy H5.
The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal. No reference to costs was made with the appeal decision.
(iv) Appeal by Mr A Buchanan against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a change of use of land from agriculture to residential curtilage on land adjacent to Manor Farmhouse, The Green, Charney Bassett (CHA/13735/3). The decision to refuse planning permission was made by the Strategic Director under powers delegated to him.
The Inspector considered that the main issue in this case was the effect of the proposed change of use of the land on the character and appearance of the Charney Bassett Conservation Area. The Inspector considered that the large open field which formed part of the appeal site was an important extension of the countryside into the heart of the Conservation Area and that it enhanced the open aspect of this part of the village. The Inspector concluded that the proposed development would neither preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area and as such was contrary to Local Plan Policies H19 and HE1.
The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal. No reference was made to costs was made with the appeal decision.
(v) Appeal by Mr and Mrs Males against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the conversion of attic into bedroom and dormers, access (onto unclassified road) and off street parking at Roselea, High Street, Childrey (CHD/18756/1). The decision to refuse permission was made by the Strategic Director under powers delegated to him.
The Inspector considered that the main issues in this case were the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Childrey Conservation Area and on highway safety on the adjoining footpath and unclassified drive.
The Inspector considered that the existing front boundary wall and raised flowerbed contributed materially to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The loss of the wall and part of the flowerbed and their replacement by solid scalloped shaped gates would appear as a discordant element in the street scene and would detract from the character of the village. The loss of a small part of the village green to accommodate the proposed driveway compounded the unacceptable nature of the proposal. The Inspector therefore concluded that the proposed vehicular access would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would be contrary to Local Plan Policy HE1 and National Guidance in PPG15.
Furthermore, the Inspector considered that in the absence of any vehicular turning space on the appeal site, vehicles would need to reverse into or from the site. The emerging visibility at the proposed access would be severely limited by the appeal dwelling and the boundary wall to the south. The Inspector was satisfied that these reversing manoeuvres would constitute a substantial risk to highway safety given the nature of the use of the immediately adjoining access to the commercial enterprise.
The Inspector concluded that the proposed development would fail to provide a safe and satisfactory access with adequate visibility onto the adjoining footpath and unclassified drive, contrary to Local Plan Policy D3. The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal. No reference to cost was made with the appeal decision.
Recommendation
that the agenda report be received.
Minutes:
The Committee received and considered an agenda item which advised of 5 appeals which had been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.
One Member referred to the dismissed appeals welcoming the Inspector’s decisions.
Another Member questioned whether it would be possible for a report to be presented to a future meeting of the Committee setting out the number of appeals allowed and dismissed. He suggested that such a report should include details of how the decisions to refuse permission were made such as by the Director under powers delegated to him; by the Committee or by the Committee contrary to Officers’ advice.
The Development Control Manager responded that this information was not readily available although he could research this information. However, he was able to report that the number of dismissed/allowed decisions could be provided, it being noted that approximately 30% of appeals were allowed.
RESOLVED
that the agenda report be received.