Appeal Decision Report
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Appeal Decision Report 17 February 2011 - 16 March 2011 MAIDENHEAD Appeal Ref.: 10/60062/REF Planning 09/02490/CLU PIns APP/T0355/X/10/2131080 Ref.: Ref.: Appellant: Mr Anthony Swales c/o Agent: Market Place Professional Services Ltd 2 Duke Street Henley On Thames Oxfordshire RG9 1UP Decision Delegated Officer Recommendation: Refuse Type: Description: Certificate of Lawfulness to determine whether an existing use of Pound Meadow for leisure purposes is lawful Location: Pound Meadow Temple Lane Bisham Marlow SL7 1SA Appeal Dismissed Decision 18 February 2011 Decision: Date: Main Issue: The appellant failed to provide evidence that as a matter of fact and degree there had been leisure use of the land for a continuous period of at least 10 years. The Inspector stated that any leisure use had been de minimise - casual or informal - and had not changed the agricultural character of the site. 169 Appeal Ref.: 10/60068/ENF Enforcement 10/00617/ENF PIns APP/T0355/C/10/2132071 Ref.: Ref.: Appellant: Michael John Leslie Batt c/o Agent: Denham And Co David J Denham P O Box 4621 Henley On Thames RG9 6WD Decision Issue Notice Officer Recommendation: Type: Description: Appeal against the Enforcement Notice: New fence erected to the rear of the property measuring a height of 2.5m Location: The S M A E Institute The New Hall 149 Bath Road Maidenhead SL6 4LA Appeal Dismissed Decision 25 February 2011 Decision: Date: Main Issue: The appellants considered that no planning permission was required for this new fence which was 2.47m high and of a similar height to that replaced, as it was "permitted development". The Inspector did not agree and supported the Council's case. He declined to grant permission under ground (a) as he felt the new fence which was constructed of metal sheeting had a significant detrimental effect on visual amenity when compared to the wooden panel fence previously along the rear boundary of this site. The appellants also made a full claim for costs against the Council as it was said RBWM had been unreasonable and their action in issuing an Enforcement Notice was disproportionate, but the Inspector did not agree and dismissed the claim for costs. Appeal Ref.: 10/60082/REF Planning 10/01595/LBC PIns APP/T0355/E/10/2135945 Ref.: Ref.: Appellant: Mr And Mrs John Skidmore c/o Agent: Ms Deidre Wells - Red Kite Development Consultancy Redlands 5 Maidenhead Court Park Maidenhead SL6 8HN Decision Committee Officer Recommendation: Refuse Type: Description: Consent to construct a two storey rear extension following demolition of existing rear extension and outbuildings Location: Addys Cottage 29 Smewins Road White Waltham Maidenhead SL6 3SR Appeal Dismissed Decision 7 March 2011 Decision: Date: Main Issue: The main 2 issues regarding this development was the impact the extension would have on the Green Belt and the Listed Building. With regard to the Green Belt the Inspector considered that given the proximity of the outbuildings to the cottage and the fact that the cottage is very small meant that it was highly likely that the outbuildings were used in connection with the dwelling and therefore accepted the appellants case that the outbuildings should be taken into account when determining the original dwelling as it was in 1947. On this basis the proposal would represent an increase of 45% over the original building. However this increase in floor area and the proposed height would result in the extension appearing disproportionate and therefore constitute inappropriate development. With regard to the extensions impact on the Listed Building the size and design of the extension would not appear subservient to the original building and would harm it special historic and architectural significance as a humble artisan dwelling. As such the appeal is dismissed on both grounds. 170 Appeal Ref.: 10/60083/REF Planning 10/01594/FULL PIns APP/TO355/A/10/2135949 Ref.: Ref.: Appellant: Mr And Mrs John Skidmore c/o Agent: Ms Deidre Wells - Red Kite Development Consultancy Redlands Cottage Maidenhead Court Park Maidenhead SL6 8HN Decision Committee Officer Recommendation: Refuse Type: Description: Two storey rear extension following demolition of existing rear extension and outbuildings Location: Addys Cottage 29 Smewins Road White Waltham Maidenhead SL6 3SR Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 7 March 2011 Decision: Main Issue: The main 2 issues regarding this development was the impact the extension would have on the Green Belt and the Listed Building. With regard to the Green Belt the Inspector considered that given the proximity of the outbuildings to the cottage and the fact that the cottage is very small meant that it was highly likely that the outbuildings were used in connection with the dwelling and therefore accepted the appellants case that the outbuildings should be taken into account when determining the original dwelling as it was in 1947. On this basis the proposal would represent an increase of 45% over the original building. However this increase in floor area and the proposed height would result in the extension appearing disproportionate and therefore constitute inappropriate development. With regard to the extensions impact on the Listed Building the size and design of the extension would not appear subservient to the original building and would harm it special historic and architectural significance as a humble artisan dwelling. As such the appeal is dismissed on both grounds. Appeal Ref.: 10/60095/REF Planning 10/01573/FULL PIns APP/T0355/A/10/2141362 Ref.: Ref.: Appellant: Mr Tyla Parman c/o Agent: Paul Stephen Smith 1 Hillbeck Grove Middleton Milton Keynes Buckinghamshire MK10 9JJ Decision Committee Officer Recommendation: Application Type: Permitted Description: Change of use from A1 (retail) to A5 (hot food takeaway) and the installation of an extractor flue Location: Thresher Wine Merchants 39 - 41 Wootton Way Maidenhead SL6 4QZ Appeal Allowed Decision Date: 14 March 2011 Decision: Main Issue: The Inspector concluded that the change of use is acceptable and would not materially impact upon highway safety or the free flow of traffic in Wootton Way. The Inspector considered that a temporary permission would be unreasonable. 171 Appeal Ref.: 10/60100/COND Planning 10/00568/VAR PIns APP/T0355/A/10/2141561 Ref.: Ref.: Appellant: Mr D Chesterman c/o Agent: Mr Andy Meader - Pegasus Planning Group Grenville Place Abbey House Bracknell Berkshire RG12 1BP Decision Committee Officer Recommendation: Application Type: Permitted Description: Change of use to animal education centre and craft workshops extension to existing stable block and associated parking, as approved under planning permission 06/01365/FULL, without complying with condition 2 of that permission so that; For the period until 1st June 2015, no more than 6 of the 11 units identified on drawing D803- 15 dated March 2010 shall be used for purposes falling within Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (As Amended). For the period until 1st June 2015, no more than one of the 11 units identified on drawing D803-15, dated March 2010, shall be used for purposes falling within Class D1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (As Amended). After 1st June 2015, units 1-11, as shown on drawing D803-15, dated March 2010, shall be used for purposes falling within Class B1(c) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) and any retail activity must be ancillary to the primary B1(c) use of those units. Location: Old Shire Horse Centre Bath Road Littlewick Green Maidenhead SL6 3QA Appeal Allowed Decision Date: 8 March 2011 Decision: Main Issue: Two issues in focus for this appeal: 1. The Inspector found that the variation of the condition proposed would not give rise to an unacceptable impact in terms of sustainable development, as a tourism and recreation based enterprise at the former Shire Horse Centre, nor in terms of its retail impact on existing centres; and 2. The Inspector found that the condition change would not give rise to a material intensification of the level of activity at the site, and thus no conflict with Policy GB2. In granting permission, the Inspector imposed an amended condition 2, but did not consider that there was a need for a floorspace restriction to define ancillary retail use. Planning Appeals Received 17 February 2011 - 16 March 2011 MAIDENHEAD The appeals listed below have been received by the Council and will be considered by the Planning Inspectorate. Further information on planning appeals can be found at www.planning- inspectorate.gov.uk Should you wish to make comments in connection with an appeal, please use the PIns reference number and write to the relevant address, shown below. Enforcement appeals: The Planning Inspectorate, Room 3/26 Hawk, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN 172 Other appeals: The Planning Inspectorate, Room 3/15, Eagle, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN Parish/Ward: Cookham Parish Appeal Ref.: 09/60097/ENF Enforcement 09/00589/ENF PIns APP/T0355/C/11/2147248& Ref.: Ref.: APP/T0355/C/11/2147251 Date Received: 22 February 2011 Comments 5 April 2011 Due: Type: Enforcement Appeal Appeal Type: Hearing Description: Appeal against the Enforcement Notices for: 1. Without Planning Permission the change of use of the amenity land east of the driveway ("the land") to residential use in connection with the dwelling. 2. Without Planning Permission the erection of a summerhouse and foundation base approximately