DOCSLIB.ORG

Appeal Decision

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. In its submissions it advised that it had determined to withdraw reason for refusal No 1 regarding conflict with the strategy for the release of housing land within Policy 3 of the Oldham Local Development Framework, Development Plan Document – Joint Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2011 (the DMP). It therefore offered no evidence towards the reason for refusal. 4. At the hearing, an agreed Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) was submitted dated November 2017. This document confirms that the main area of disagreement between the main parties relates to the effect of the proposal on highway safety. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/W4223/W/17/3175644 5. Within the SOCG the parties agree that the Draft Manchester Spatial Framework 2016 (GMSF) sets out the spatial distribution of housing growth, and states that the housing need in Oldham is for 13,700 dwellings (or 685 per annum) from 2014 for the full plan period to 2035. On this basis, the Council confirmed at the hearing that, irrespective of whether a 5% or 20% buffer is applied, it is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply. As a result, there was no dispute that, in accordance with paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date. 6. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the proposal would be in accordance with the requirements of Policy 3 of the DMP. This allows the favourable consideration of non-allocated sites, such as the appeal site, for housing where a deliverable five year supply of housing land cannot be demonstrated. 7. The Council made its decision on the planning application with respect to the proposed site access and associated traffic calming as shown on drawing 2044- 001B. The SOCG refers to revised drawing 2044-001C, which has been accepted by the Council as the relevant drawing to be used within a condition listing the plans to which the permission relates should the appeal be allowed. Drawing 2044-001C makes only minor alterations to the scheme as proposed under drawing 2044-001B, the revisions relating to the paving of an existing verge. I am satisfied therefore, that interested parties would not be prejudiced were I to accept the plan and have regard to it in my determination of the appeal. 8. At the hearing a further drawing showing another revision to the originally proposed traffic calming scheme was put forward by the appellant under revision 2044-001D. The drawing was submitted in support of the appellant’s case as it evolved during the hearing, that the speed cushions would not be necessary as part of the overall traffic calming scheme. The revised drawing therefore deletes the proposed speed cushions, and only includes reference to the raised table. 9. However, during the related discussion at the hearing the Council’s Highway Officer (CHO) raised concerns regarding the removal of the speed cushions. They form part of a more extensive integrated traffic calming scheme on Haven Lane. WithoutRichborough detailed investigation and design Estates work, any ‘knock-on’ effects of the proposed amendments in terms of any implications for highway safety are unknown. The limited evidence in this respect from either party, particularly in light of the comments of the CHO, means that I cannot conclude, with any degree of confidence, that the removal of the speed cushions would not have an adverse impact on highway safety. Thus with the precautionary principle in mind, I have considered the scheme on the basis of the inclusion of the speed cushions as per drawing 2044-001C. Any revised scheme without the speed cushions would need to form the subject of a revised application which would be considered by the Council in the first instance. 10. The appellant submitted a signed planning obligation under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, in the form of a unilateral undertaking (UU). The UU contains covenants in respect of the provision and management of open space provision, and financial contributions of £139,323 towards the cost of affordable housing and £35,767 towards the cost of traffic https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/W4223/W/17/3175644 calming. The obligation is a material consideration and is considered in more detail later in this decision. Application for Costs 11. At the Hearing an application for costs was made by Heyford Developments against Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council. That application is the subject of a separate Decision. Main Issue 12. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety. Reasons 13. Haven Lane forms a mainly residential street accessed at its northern end from Turf Pit Lane, which has a junction with the main A672 controlled by traffic lights. At its southern end, it meets Counthill Road which also links to the A672. 14. There are examples of terraced, detached and semi-detached houses along Haven Lane, some of which have no access to off street parking. As a result, on street parking is a particular characteristic of the road, which reduces its width to single carriageway in some parts. There are a number of streets which take access onto Haven Lane along its length. I have been supplied with various estimates of the number of houses on these streets feeding onto Haven Lane ranging between 260 and 320. 15. In addition, the construction of 46 houses on a site to the south of the appeal site (the Redrow site) is nearing completion. I was also advised that a site on Counthill Road had received planning permission for houses. 16. Concern was raised by the Council, and local residents, regarding the current level of car movements and congestion on Haven Lane caused by parked cars. As a result, it was considered that it was difficult for drivers of cars to easily navigate the road. Consequently, the Council and interested parties considered that the addition of a further 23 houses, and the associated car movements would be harmful to the existing difficult highway conditions on Haven Lane. There was a particular concern, given the current high level of on street parking, that the visibility for drivers edging out of the new junction would be significantly impaired.Richborough Furthermore, the length Estates of the distance that cars are parked on Haven Lane can make it difficult for people to get past causing tensions to rise and which could, on occasion, result in collisions. 17. The appellant submits within the Traffic Impacts Summary Note 2016 (TISN) that the existing traffic generation along Haven Lane is one vehicle every 45 seconds northbound and less than one vehicle per minute southbound in the morning peak period and not dissimilar figures in the evening peak period. I found this to be a reasonable assessment based on my observations at both of my site visits, one of which was undertaken within the evening peak period. While I acknowledge the comments of local residents regarding the existing level of traffic using Haven Lane, the only substantive evidence before me, combined with my own observations during the site visits leads me to the view that Haven Lane is not heavily trafficked. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/W4223/W/17/3175644 18. Based on figures from the Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS), the appellant’s Transport Statement 2016 (TS) states that traffic associated with the development proposed would give rise to 11 traffic movements during the morning peak hour, and 12 traffic movements during the evening peak. These figures are disputed by the Council and local residents, who consider that the number is more likely to be 46 movements at each peak period based on each house being occupied by working families with access to two cars. 19. TRICS provides a recognised means of calculating trip rates for new residential development. Furthermore, the parameters used to extract vehicle trip rates by the appellant are broadly consistent with those proposed under the appeal proposal.
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]
  • 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]
  • Planning Granted
    PLANNING GRANTED Mr C Tunnell Please reply to: Ms Sharon Davidson Ove Arup And Partners Ltd 13 Fitzroy Street Email: Development.control@enfiel London d.gov.uk W1T 4BQ My ref: 16/01197/RE3 Date: 10 July 2017 Dear Sir/Madam In accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and the Orders made thereunder, and with regard to your application at: LOCATION: Meridian Water, Willoughby Lane And, Meridian Way, London REFERENCE: 16/01197/RE3 PROPOSAL: Development of Phase 1 of Meridian Water comprising up to 725 residential units, new station building, platforms and associated interchange and drop-off facilities including a pedestrian link across the railway, a maximum of 950 sqm retail (A1/A2/A3), floorspace, a maximum of 600 sqm of community (D1) floorspace, a maximum of 750 sqm of leisure (D2) floorspace, associated site infrastructure works including ground and remediation works, roads, cycle-ways and footpaths, utility works above and below ground, surface water drainage works, energy centre and associated plant, public open space and childrens play areas, and various temporary meantime uses without structures (landscaping and open space). OUTLINE APPLICATION - ACCESS ONLY. An Environmental Statement, including a non-technical summary, also accompanies the planning application in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended by the 2015 Regulations). By virtue of Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations, 1992 the proposal, as
    [Show full text]