DOCSLIB.ORG

Merritt V Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another - [2000] 3 PLR 125

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Merritt V Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another - [2000] 3 PLR 125 Page 1 Estates Gazette Planning Law Reports/2000/Volume 3 /Merritt v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and another - [2000] 3 PLR 125 [2000] 3 PLR 125 Merritt v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and another Queen's Bench Division Mr Robin Purchas QC (sitting as a deputy judge of the Queen's Bench Division) 5 August 1999 Planning conditions - Grampian condition - Policy guidance - Rejection of Grampian condition by inspector on ground of unlikely fulfilment within life of permission - Whether application of policy guidance lawful - Whether inspector properly exercised discretion regarding Grampian condition In November 1997 the applicant applied for outline planning permission for residential development of land with all the matters reserved, including means of access. That application was supported by a site plan. The applicant was willing to accept a Grampian condition restricting development on the site to four dwellings until vehicular access acceptable to the highway authority was achieved. The applicant appealed to the Secretary of State against non-determination of its application under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In dismissing the appeal, the Secretary of State, by his inspector, considered that there was no reasonable prospect that a Grampian condition could be fulfilled within the time-limit imposed by a planning permission and declined to impose such a condition. The applicant applied to quash that decision on the grounds that the inspector erred: (1) in rejecting a Grampian condition for the above reason; and (2) in concluding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the impact on highway safety would not be unacceptable, when means of access was a reserved matter. Held The application was allowed and the decision quashed. The Secretary of State had adopted a policy against the imposition of Grampian conditions where there was no reasonable prospect of fulfilment within the time-limit for the permission, as set out in para 40 of the annex to Circular 11/95. It was not for the court to question the policy. That policy, having been approved, constituted a material consideration to which the inspector was entitled to, and should, have regard. The inspector was bound to consider the discretion whether to impose a condition, having regard to, but not bound by, the policy of the Secretary of State. The danger of promulgating the policy in absolute form was that the decision maker might regard himself as bound to follow that policy. There was no indication in the inspector's decision letter that the advice in the annex had been balanced with other matters, such as vehicular access and finance, which were material in considering whether, in the circumstances, the para 40 policy should be applied or whether a Grampian condition could, or should, properly be imposed. The inspector simply applied the policy as a mandatory requirement without scope for discretion on his power. The inspector's conclusion on the Grampian [2000] 3 PLR 125 at 126 condition was crucial to the conclusion that he reached on the acceptability of the proposal and the application of development plan policy. Cases referred to in the judgment Page 2 British Railways Board v Secretary of State for the Environment [1994] 1 EGLR 197; [1994] 02 EG 107; [1993] 3 PLR 125; [1994] JPL 32, HL Grampian Regional Council v Aberdeen City District Council (1983) 47 P&CR 633; 1984 SLT 197; [1984] JPL 590, HL H Lavender & Son Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1231; [1970] 3 All ER 871; (1969) 68 LGR 408 Jones v Secretary of State for Wales (1990) 61 P&CR 238; [1990] 3 PLR 102, CA Kent County Council v Kingsway Investments (Kent) Ltd [1971] AC 72, HL Millington v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [1999] 1 PLR 36 QB; [1999] 3 PLR 118, CA Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759; [1995] 2 All ER 636; 93 LGR 403; [1995] 2 EGLR 147; [1995] 27 EG 154; [1995] 2 PLR 72, HL Application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 This was an application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by Douglas John Merritt to quash the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions dismissing his appeal against the non-determination by Mendip District Council of his application for planning permission. The applicant, Douglas John Merritt, appeared in person and was assisted by his McKenzie friend, Francis Morland. Michael Bedford (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) represented the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The second respondents, Mendip District Council, did not appear and were not represented. The following judgment was delivered. MR ROBIN PURCHAS QC: In this application, Douglas John Merritt applies under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the decision of an inspector, on behalf of the first respondent, dismissing his appeal from the failure of the second respondents to decide his application for planning permission for residential development on land off Garston Road, Frome, Somerset. The application concerns two issues: the first of which is of general importance, namely: 1. whether the inspector erred in law in rejecting a Grampian condition as to the provision of Page 3 access on the ground that he was not convinced that there was a reasonable prospect that the condition would be fulfilled within the time-limit imposed on the permission; and 2. whether the inspector otherwise erred in concluding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the impact on highway safety would not be unacceptable, when means of access was a reserved matter. [2000] 3 PLR 125 at 127 With the leave of the court, Mr Francis Morland appeared as a litigation friend for the applicant. This court is indebted to Mr Morland for his courteous, clear and succinct presentation of the applicant's case. Background The site comprises 0.3ha within Frome, to the rear of a terrace of houses at Garston Road. The land had been disused for many years. While unallocated on the current development plan, it lay within the Garsdale project area. Following consultation in July 1997, the second respondents' environment committee adopted a non-statutory planning brief for the project area, which comprised, in total, some 15.2ha of predominately urban land. The brief made broad allocations for employment, residential and retail commercial development. The appeal site was on the edge of the residential allocation. The brief dealt with access in section 9. It is headed: Principle II: Any proposals shall provide satisfactory access to, egress from and circulation within the project area. This includes access and egress within development sites. Para 9.1 continued: Access and road capacity are major considerations within the project area. These considerations are why a holistic approach to redevelopment has been adopted. Piecemeal development, which does not meet with the principles of the brief, will jeopardise the development of the brief area as a whole. The aim is not to preclude development from coming forward, but to ensure it contributes to the overall objectives. Para 9.2 referred to plan V, which: illustrates in conceptual terms the road layout showing how development in the area could take place. That plan showed a loop road running through the project area, connecting the main road network that would give access to the appeal site. At para 9.3, the brief stated: The approach is endorsed "in principle" by County Highway Surveyor, subject to satisfactory details being submitted by any developer. Page 4 By para 9.5: Preliminary advice on junction arrangements onto Christchurch Street/Portway... suggest: *controlled signal junction at the eastern end of the site - Portway/Wallbridge; reason: visibility constraints. [2000] 3 PLR 125 at 128 I should explain that that junction was the junction most proximate to the appeal site, and that the visibility constraints referred to the abutments of a railway bridge to the east of that junction, which would constrain visibility for a normal priority junction. At para 9.6, the brief continued: There is no public finance available for highway improvements or infrastructure. Highway requirements to provide access to individual sites will need to be borne by the development. Proposals will be required to identify and mitigate any traffic impact generated by the proposed development. The LPA therefore recommends early discussions with the County Surveyor to resolve any issues arising. Highway solutions will be ensured either through planning conditions or section 106 agreements. 9.7 Developers need to be mindful of the need to... *contribute through a Section 106 Agreement to the required junction improvements... and a new junction arrangement onto Portway/Wallbridge to the east of the project area... The appeal site's existing access was by a right of way over a driveway to Garston Road. On 26 November 1997 the applicant applied for outline planning permission for residential development of the land, with all matters reserved, including means of access. The application was supported by a site plan. In his letter supporting the application, the applicant's agent, Mr Morland, wrote: The land fronts an existing driveway of long standing which has not yet been adopted by the Highway Authority and which its Design Guidance suggests should not normally serve more than two dwellings to each of its junctions with Garston Road... The applicant is therefore willing to accept a Grampian condition restricting development on the application site to four dwellings until a vehicular access acceptable to the Highway Authority is achieved direct from Wallbridge over West Yard.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan
    Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan 2014 - 2031 January 2016 1 Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan – Made Version January 2016 This document is re-issued in its entirety and may not be reproduced in part or whole without the express written permission of Worth Parish Council. © Worth Parish Council 2014. 2 Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan – Made Version January 2016 Executive Summary 1 This is the Neighbourhood Plan for Crawley Down Ward which is part of Worth Parish in Mid- Sussex District. A separate plan is being prepared for Copthorne Ward, which makes up the rest of Worth Parish. 2 The Neighbourhood Plan is a new type of planning document. It is the lowest tier of a hierarchy of development plans which include the Local Development Plan prepared by the District Council and the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). When approved, this plan will shape the evolution of Crawley Down village and the surrounding countryside. 3 The Plan has been prepared by a sub-committee of Worth Parish Council and is based on substantial consultation with the local population and local businesses to identify and develop solutions for key local issues. It covers the period 2014 to 2031 and sets out a clear vision for the future of Crawley Down: A thriving and attractive village community set in unspoilt and accessible countryside that provides an excellent quality of life for residents, visitors, and those who work in, or travel through, the area. 4 The Plan sets out 11 policies which together with the NPPF and the Local Plan ensure that new development in the Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan Area will be sustainable and in accordance with the vision.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document
    • Herefordshire O Council Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document April 2008 0 0 hfdscouncil herefordshire.gov.uk Contents Page Summary 1 Part 1 Context 5 1.1 Purpose of Supplementary Planning Document 5 1.2 Consultation 5 1.3 Definitions and Purpose of Planning Obligations 6 1.4 Types and Use of Planning Obligations 6 1.5 Grampian Conditions 7 1.6 Planning Policy Context 7 1.7 Council Priorities 8 1.8 Community Involvement in Pre-Application Consultation 9 1.9 Sustainability Appraisal 9 Part 2 Code Of Practice 10 2.1 The Council’s Approach 10 2.2 Procedure for Negotiating a Planning Obligation 10 2.3 Monitoring 12 2.4 Development Viability 12 2.5 Management 12 Part 3 Community Infrastructure 15 3.1 Accessibility, Transport and Movement 15 3.2 Affordable Housing See Affordable Housing SPD 2021 20 3.3 Biodiversity 24 3.4 Community Services 26 3.5 Children and Young People 29 3.6 Flood Risk Management, Water Services and Pollution Control 33 3.7 Heritage and Archaeology 34 3.8 Landscape 35 3.9 Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities 36 3.10 Town Centres, Community Safety and Public Realm 42 3.11 Waste Reduction and Recycling 45 Appendices 46 1 UDP Policies 46 2 Average Occupancy per Dwelling 47 3 Employee/Floorspace Ratios 48 4 Costs of Providing CCTV 49 Figures S1 Thresholds for Planning Obligations 1 S2 Summary Table of Planning Obligations 4 1 Procedure for Negotiating, Preparing and Completing a Planning Obligation 14 2 Example of Transport Contributions 18 3 Transport Accessibility Zones 19 4 Commuted Payments for
    [Show full text]
  • Appeal Decision
    Appeal Decision Hearing Held on 14 November 2017 Unaccompanied site visit made on 13 November 2017 Accompanied site visit made on the 14 November 2017 by Zoe Raygen Dip URP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 4TH December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/W4223/W/17/3175644 Land off Haven Lane, Moorside, Oldham, OL4 2QH The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. The appeal is made by Heyford Developments Limited against the decision of Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council. The application Ref PA/338917/16, dated 27 July 2016, was refused by notice dated 18 November 2016. The development proposed is residential development of up to 23 dwellings (C3 use class). Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for residential development of up to 23 dwellings (C3 use class) at Land off Haven Lane, Moorside, Oldham OL4 2QH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA/338917/16, dated 27 July 2016 subject to the conditions set out in the schedule to this decision notice. Preliminary matters 2. The application was made in outline form with all matters to be reserved for future consideration except access. I have considered the appeal on that basis. The appellant Richboroughhas submitted a masterplan for Estates the site showing a layout incorporating 23 dwellings which I have treated as indicative only. 3. The Council refused the planning application PA/338917/16 for three reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Application 17/0427/OUT
    REPORT OF: THE PLANNING, BUILDING CONTROL AND LICENSING SERVICES MANAGER TO: DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE DATES: 23rd OCTOBER 2017 Contact Details: Neil Watson Tel. No: 01282 661706 E-mail: [email protected] PLANNING APPLICATIONS PURPOSE OF REPORT To determine the attached planning applications REPORT TO DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ON 23 OCTOBER 2017 Application Ref: 17/0427/OUT Proposal: Outline: Major: Erection of up to 200 dwelling houses, with open space provision, estate roads, landscaping and emergency access road with access from Marsden Hall Road (Access only) (Re- Submission). At: Land At Further Clough Head, Bamford Street, Nelson On behalf of: Liberata Date Registered: 04/08/2017 Expiry Date: 03/11/2017 Case Officer: Alex Cameron This application is for a housing development of more than 60 houses and as such must be determined by Development Management Committee. The application was referred to Nelson Area Committee for comments on 10th October 2017. The Committee resolved to make the following comments: Concerns regarding school places, building on green field sites and the infrastructure of Nelson isn’t strong enough to accommodate more houses. Site Description and Proposal The application site is a 10.4 ha parcel of open land to the south of Messenger Street, Wickworth Street and Pinewood Drive in Nelson, the site it roughly a ‘C’ shape with an allotment site at its centre. The majority is allocated for housing in the Local Plan. There is open land to the south, and east, Pendle Industrial Estate to the west and dwellings and allotments to the north. The site would be accessed from Marsden Hall Road South with a second emergency access point from Windsor Street.
    [Show full text]
  • Appeal Decision Inquiry Held on 11,12, 18, 19, 20 and 24 May 2021 Site Visit Made on 21 May 2021
    Appeal Decision Inquiry Held on 11,12, 18, 19, 20 and 24 May 2021 Site visit made on 21 May 2021 by G J Fort BA PGDip LLM MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8th June 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/B1740/W/20/3265937 Site of The Rise and Three Neighbouring Properties, Stanford Hill, Lymington, SO41 8DE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Renaissance Retirement Limited against the decision of New Forest District Council. • The application Ref 20/10481, dated 1 May 2020, was refused by notice dated 14 October 2020. • The development proposed is the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 44 sheltered apartments for the elderly with associated access, mobility scooter store, refuse bin store, landscaping and 34 parking spaces. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 44 sheltered apartments for the elderly with associated access, mobility scooter store, refuse bin store, landscaping and 34 parking spaces at the site of The Rise and Three Neighbouring Properties, Stanford Hill, Lymington, SO41 8DE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/10481, dated 1 May 2020, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule below. Procedural Matters 2. The application that led to this appeal was refused by the Council on a number of grounds including its effects to biodiversity (both offsite and on-site) and its effects to the living conditions of the occupants of 14 and 15 Bucklers Mews.
    [Show full text]
  • Cost Decision 3238171.Pdf
    Costs Decision Inquiry held on 4 February 2020 Site visit made on 5 February 2020 by Martin Whitehead LLB BSc(Hons) CEng MICE an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2nd March 2020 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/W/19/3238171 Land west of Barton Hill Drive, Minster-on-sea, Kent ME12 3LZ • The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 320 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). • The application is made by SW Attwood & Partners for a full award of costs against Swale Borough Council. • The Inquiry was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of outline planning permission for the development of up to 700 dwellings and all necessary supporting infrastructure including land for the provision of a convenience store / community facility, internal access roads, footpaths, cycleways and parking, open space, play areas and landscaping, drainage, utilities and service infrastructure works. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in part in the terms set out below. Preamble 2. The application is made based on the guidance given in the national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Summary of the written submissions for SW Attwood & Partners1 3. In support of the claim for a full award of costs, the appellant cited both procedural and substantive unreasonable behaviour by the Council. The Council acted unreasonably in imposing the reason for refusal based on the development not providing any affordable housing on a number of the grounds identified in the PPG, including a ‘failure to provide evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal’ and ‘not reviewing their case promptly following the lodging of an appeal against refusal of planning permission’.
    [Show full text]
  • Judgment Approved by the Court for Handing Down
    Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 493 Case No: C1/2015/1428 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT PLANNING COURT MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM [2015] EWHC 886 (Admin) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 27 May 2016 Before: The Master of the Rolls Lady Justice Macur and Lord Justice Lindblom - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Appellant - and - BDW Trading Ltd. (T/A David Wilson Homes (Central, Mercia and West Midlands)) Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr Richard Kimblin Q.C. (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Appellant Mr Hugh Richards (instructed by Gateley Plc) for the Respondent Hearing date: 12 April 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgment Approved by the court for handing down Judgment Approved by the court for handing down Lord Justice Lindblom: Introduction 1. In this appeal we have to consider whether an inspector deciding an appeal against a refusal of planning permission failed to discharge the duty, under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, to make the decision in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. This is not the first occasion on which the section 38(6) duty has been the focus of an appeal to this court. 2. The appellant, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, appeals against the order of Hickinbottom J., dated 13 April 2015, by which he allowed the application of the respondent, BDW Trading Ltd. (trading as David Wilson Homes (Central, Mercia and West Midlands)), challenging the decision of the Secretary of State’s inspector to dismiss its appeal against Stafford Borough Council’s refusal of planning permission for housing development – 114 dwellings – on land at Spode Close in Stone, Staffordshire.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 AGENDA ITEM NO 7 1.0 RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Members
    AGENDA ITEM NO 7 MAIN CASE Reference No: 18/00155/OUM Proposal: Proposed employment development consisting of B1 uses, and associated access and landscaping. Site Address: Site To North Meadow View Industrial Estate Reach Road Burwell Applicant: IGP Solar PV Plant Number 6 Ltd Case Officer: Richard Fitzjohn, Planning Officer Parish: Burwell Ward: Burwell Ward Councillor/s: Councillor David Brown Councillor Lavinia Edwards Councillor Michael Allan Date Received: 2 February 2018 Expiry Date: 4th May 2018 [S276] 1.0 RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Members are recommended to APPROVE the application subject to the recommended conditions below with any changes delegated to the Planning Manager. The conditions can be read in full on the attached Appendix 1. 1 Approved Plans 2 Time Limit OUT / OUM 3 Time Limit - OUT/OMM/RMA/RMM 4 Site Characterisation 5 Reporting of unexpected contamination 6 Surface water drainage scheme 7 Surface water maintenance scheme 8 Foul water drainage scheme 9 BREEAM requirement 10 Residential Travel Plan 11 Footway, crossing and access provision 12 Access gates restriction 13 Vehicular access width 14 Parking and turning 15 Visibility splays 16 Access and hardstanding drainage 17 Archaeological Investigation Agenda Item 7 – Page 1 18 Fire hydrants or sprinkler system 19 Tree protection 20 Biodiversity protection/enhancement 21 Construction hours 22 Construction Environmental Management Pl 23 Limit B1 Floor Space 2.0 SUMMARY OF APPLICATION 2.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for the change of use of land to a B1 (business) use, with associated B1 business units, a new vehicular access with Reach Road and landscaping. The matter of access is being considered as part of this application, with the matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Committee Report 9 September 2020 REPORT
    Planning Committee Report 9 September 2020 REPORT SUMMARY REFERENCE NO - 19/00822/HYBRID APPLICATION PROPOSAL Hybrid Application - Outline (Access not reserved) - (Development comprising of the erection of 13 dwellings); Full - (Erection of 12 Almshouses together with accesses, parking, landscaping and drainage) ADDRESS Land Adjacent Rothermere Close Walkhurst Road Benenden Cranbrook Kent RECOMMENDATION to GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and subject to conditions (please refer to section 11.0 of the report for full recommendation) SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION In the absence of a five year supply of housing, the housing supply policies (including those related to the Limits to Built Development (LBD) are “out-of-date”. Paragraph 11 and Footnote 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that where relevant policies are out-of-date that permission for sustainable development should be granted unless specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted (and all other material considerations are satisfied); The proposal would result in the delivery of sustainable development and therefore, in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the NPPF, permission should be granted, subject to all other material considerations being satisfied. The proposal is considered to accord with the Development Plan and Local Policy in respect of these material considerations; The proposal is considered to comply with Paragraph 172 of the NPPF in terms of its impact
    [Show full text]
  • Appeal Decision
    Appeal Decision Hearing held on 16 October 2012 Site visit made on 16 October 2012 by C A Newmarch BA(Hons) MRICS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 12 November 2012 Appeal Ref: APP/V2635/A/12/2175128 Fosters Sports Ground, Main Road, Clenchwarton, King’s Lynn, Norfolk • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Elm Park Holdings against the decision of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council. • The application Ref 11/01877/OM, dated 2 November 2011, was refused by notice dated 10 February 2012. • The development proposed is ‘residential development of up to 75 dwellings of which 15 will be affordable. This is an outline application with all matters reserved other than access.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matters 2. The appellant has completed a unilateral undertaking which is discussed further below. 3. Since the application was refused by the Council, the appellant has carried out an archaeological field evaluation. It did not reveal any evidence of significant heritage assets with archaeological interest on the site. The Council confirms that this satisfies its refusal reason No 3. I have no reason to disagree and, accordingly, it has not formed part of my consideration of the appeal. 4. The appellant signed Certificate A at both the application and appeal stages, in good faith. When preparing the unilateral undertaking it was discovered that the red line shown on the submitted plans includes land beyond the appellant’s control.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr Cochran Case Officer: Rose Lister Date Valid: 1 May 2020 Recommendation: Permit
    WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE Case No: 20/00883/FUL Proposal Description: Erection of small scale holiday let accommodation consisting of 2 x Shepherd huts and 1 x Treehouse Address: Land Adjacent To Kestrel Rise Pricketts Hill Shedfield SO32 2JW Parish, or Ward if within Shedfield Winchester City: Applicants Name: Mr Cochran Case Officer: Rose Lister Date Valid: 1 May 2020 Recommendation: Permit Link to Planning Documents : https://planningapps.winchester.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=Q9NNDRBPKCR00 Pre Application Advice: No © Crown Copyright and database rights Winchester City Council License 100019531 Case No: 20/00883/FUL WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE General Comments The application is reported to Committee due to the number of objections received contrary to the officer recommendation and the Parish Council’s request for the application to be determined by Planning Committee, see Appendix 1 Site Description The site is approximately 1 hectare in size and has a gentle slope to the east. There is a SINC (Long Copse) to the east immediately adjacent to the site, and another SINC (Shedfield Common) to the west and is approximately 95m from the site. The site is currently used as a small holding with horses, sheep and chickens on site. Proposal The proposal is for 2 units of tourist accommodation. This was reduced from 3 units, the original description included a third unit, a tree house, and this was removed from the proposal due to the impact on the adjacent SINC.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Law in Wales Final Report
    Planning Law in Wales Final Report Cyfraith Cynllunio yng Nghymru Adroddiad Terfynol HC 1788 Law Com No 383 (Law Com No 383) Planning Law in Wales Cyfraith Cynllunio yng Nghymru Final Report Adroddiad Terfynol Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965; and presented to the National Assembly for Wales Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 30 November 2018 November 2018 Tachwedd 2018 HC 1788 © Crown copyright 2018 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/version/3 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications. Print ISBN 978-1-5286-0905-0 CCS 1118073096 11/18 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office THE LAW COMMISSION The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Right Honourable Lord Justice Green, Chairman Professor Nick Hopkins Stephen Lewis Professor David Ormerod, QC (Hon) Nicholas Paines, QC The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Phil Golding. The Law Commission is located at 1st Floor Tower, 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AG. The terms of this report were agreed on 6 September 2018.
    [Show full text]