Appeal A – The proposed development desribed as the erection of up to 130 residential dwellings, introduction of structural planting and landscaping, public open space, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation,vehicular access points from New Road and associated ancillary works. All matters to be reserved with the exception of means of access has been dismissed. 

Appeal B – The development proposed is described as ‘the erection of up to 130 residential dwellings (including 35% affordable housing), introduction of structural planting and landscaping, public open space, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation,vehicular access points from New Road and associated ancillary works. All matters tobe reserved with the exception of means of access has also been dismissed. 

The proposed development of demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 42no houses and maisonettes including associated external works has been dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the provision of 42 dwellings on the character and the appearance of the area, having regard to it’s location in the AONB. Second main issue is the highway safety and biodiversity.

Appeal A is allowed and permission is granted for an access road from Copthorne Road to serve permitted residential development within Mid Sussex District at 17 Copthorne Road, Felbridge, East Grinstead RH19 2NR, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref TA/2016/2319, dated 12 December 2016, subject to the attached schedule of conditions.

Appeal B is allowed and permission is granted for the demolition of existing buildings at Nos 15 and 39 Crawley Down Road and the erection of 63 dwellings with associated new access at 15 and 39 Crawley Down Road,Felbridge, East Grinstead RH19 2PP, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref TA/2017/1290, dated 19 June 2017, subject to the attached schedule of conditions.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted, for the erection of 227 dwellings with associated landscaping and access, on land off Meadow Lane/ Chessington Crescent, Trentham, Stoke-on-Trent, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 57901, dated 9 January 2015, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of 43 dwellings and associated parking, with new access from Monkton Lane at Green Lane Farm, Green Lane, Badshot Lea, Surrey GU9 9JL in accordance with the application Ref WA/2018/1230, dated 3 July 2018, without compliance with condition numbers 2, 3, 5 and 8 previously imposed on planning permission Ref WA/2016/2456, dated 5 March 2018 and subject to the conditions set out in a schedule at the end of the decision. 

The proposed development of 30 residential units has been dismissed. 

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Redgrave Conservation Area

The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs G Topham against the decision of Mid Suffolk District Council.
 The application Ref DC/17/05663, dated 10 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 16 March 2018.

The proposed development described as an “application to consider the possibility of demolishing numbers 3 and 4 Walmar Close, 2 single family dwellings and the construction of 12 new apartments with basement parking. The residential accommodation will be set over basement, ground and first floors with a further floor set in the roof scape, with between 2 and 4 apartments per floor. The proposed mix is 4 No: 3-Bedroom and 8 No: 2-Bedroom has been dismissed.

The main issues are: (i) the effect of the proposed development on the
character and appearance of the area; (ii) whether or not adequate
arrangements are made for the disposal of surface water from the site; (iii) the
effect of the proposal on the provision of affordable housing and education in
the area; and (iv) the effect of the proposed development on highway safety,
with regards to vehicular and pedestrian access, cycle parking, refuse storage
and servicing.

The proposed development of residential development consisting of 68 dwellings, public open space and new vehicular access onto woodstock road has been dismissed.

Having taken into account the evidence before me and from what I heard at the Inquiry, the main issues are:
• The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area with particular regard to the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
• Whether there are any exceptional circumstances which justify major development within the AONB and whether such development would be in the public interest.
• Whether the proposed development would be appropriately located, taking into account the planning balance of whether any adverse impacts of approving the development would outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) taken as a whole.
Richborough Estates

The proposed development of the erection of 19 dwellings, provision of public open space, new accesses off Hillfoot Road, landscaping, re-arrangement of parking provision on Hillfoot Road and all associated ancillary works has been dismissed.

The main issues are as follows:
• Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Shillington Conservation Area and the setting of the Grade I listed Church of All Saints;
• The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular reference to its location within the open countryside outside the settlement envelope, and its role as an area of open space; and,
• Whether any harm in relation to the above main issues and any conflict with the development plan is outweighed by other material considerations.

The proposed development of redevelopment of former garden centre to 17 no dwellings, public open spaces including associated landscape works together with conversion of existing building to office has been dismissed.

The site lies within the Green Belt. Accordingly, the main issues are:
• Whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to any relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework;
• If the proposal is inappropriate development, whether harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.