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 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. The appellant submitted an amended site location plan, dated 19 September 2012, in the belief that the omitted land forms part of the adopted highway. Subsequent examination of the Highway Authority’s more recent ownership records, dated 25 September 2012 (Plan B), demonstrates that there is a narrow wedge of land between the appellant’s site and the highway. The title to this strip of land is unregistered, and it is in unknown ownership. 5. The appellant has not, therefore, signed the correct Certificates. The parties disagree as to whether the appeal is valid, or whether a Grampian condition could be used to preclude development taking place until the ownership matter is resolved. Even though the Highway Authority does not object to the proposed junction between the site and Main Road, the appellant has not www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/V2635/A/12/2175128 demonstrated that it could be implemented. I have, however, decided to dismiss the appeal for other reasons which are explained below. The appellant’s failure to serve the correct notices is not, therefore, a determinative matter, and does not harm the interests of any party. Main Issues 6. The main issues are: • Whether there is a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites in the Borough; • The effect on the character and appearance of the countryside; and • Whether the proposal would be in sequentially preferable location with regard to flooding and the Hazard Area. Reasons Housing land supply 7. The CS provides for a minimum of 16,500 new dwellings within the Borough from 2001-2026. This figure, which equates to an annual requirement of 660 dwellings, accords with the East of England Plan (EEP), 2008, and was found to be sound at the CS examination in 2011. 8. Taking account of the housing completions between 2001 and 2011, there is a total 5 year housing requirement for 3275 dwellings. Adding an additional 5% buffer, in accordance with paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), the 5 year requirement rises to 3,439 dwellings, which is equivalent to 688 dwellings per annum. 9. The Council’s Annual Monitoring Report, December 2011, published in April 2012, identifies a supply of sites for 3276, which equates to some 4.76 years’ supply. However, paragraph 48 of the Framework permits making an allowance for windfall sites within the 5 year supply where Councils have compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available in the local area and will continue to provide a reliable source of supply. Given the Council’s experience of the contribution of windfall sites to the housing supply over an 11 year period, together with the unusually large geographical area of the Borough, and the high number of settlements within the Borough, I accept that the Council’s suggested allowances for windfall sites, based on 70% of past rates, is realistic in this instance. On this basis, there is a deliverable housing land supply of around 6.03 years. 10. There remain some differences in approach between the parties with regard to the calculation of the 5 year deliverable supply sites. The appellant submits that the figures for planning permissions and allocations should be discounted by 10%, as in the appeal at Honeybourne (Ref APP/H1840/A/12/2171339). However, as the Council’s annual requirement incorporates an additional 10% for flexibility and non-completion of commitments, this is not necessary. 11. The appellant also challenges the housing provision in the CS on the basis that, in conforming to the EEP, the figures are based on outdated 2004 household projections, and submits a range of scenarios, using the Chelmer model, as well as more recent household projections, which point towards an under- supply of housing land. While some of my colleagues have taken interim www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/V2635/A/12/2175128 household figures into account in other appeals, it is significant that there was no Core Strategy in place at Bude (Ref APP/D0840/A/09/2115945), and at Wootton Bassett (Ref APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906) the local plan was adopted in 2006. Neither case is, therefore, comparable to the appeal at Clenchwarton, where the CS is a recently examined and adopted development plan document. The evidence base which underpins the CS is not, therefore, a matter for me in this appeal. 12. The Council will need to re-visit its housing provision in the light of more recent household projections, and to keep its housing supply in line with the evidence base in the future, but it has demonstrated that there is currently in excess of a deliverable 5 year housing land supply, and so the CS policies are not out of date. Furthermore, the degree of conflict between the CS and the requirements in paragraph 47 of the Framework is limited, and having regard to paragraph 214 of the Framework, I give full weight to the CS. 13. I have also taken account of the appeal decisions referred to by the appellant in support of the appeal. At Andover (Ref APP/X3025/A/10/2140962) the Inspector identified only 3.3 years supply of housing sites. At Keresley (Ref APP/W3710/A/11/2153247) although the Inspector recognised the importance of household projections, there is no indication of whether the local plan was up to date. At Evesham (Ref APP/H1840/A/10/2124085) the Council was unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply immediately following the (initial, temporary) revocation of the Regional Strategies in 2010. In the appeal at Stratford–upon-Avon (Ref APP/J3730/A/102139071) the site was identified as a Strategic Reserve Site in the local plan. At Moreton in Marsh (Ref APP F1610/A/10/2130320) a 5 year supply to meet the housing requirement in the Structure Plan did not exist, and this weighed heavily in favour of the development. At Marston Green (Ref APP/Q4625/A/11/2157515) there was a significant shortfall in the supply of housing land on any basis considered. Although there are some similarities between some aspects of the above cases and the appeal before me, none is directly comparable for the reasons given. Furthermore, they are based on advice which has been superseded by the Framework, and I give them little weight. Character and appearance 14. Sports activities have not taken place on this former private sports field for some years. The site is vacant and largely unused, other than being cut for hay annually. It is not, therefore, previously developed land. 15. The site is not allocated for any use, but is within the countryside, beyond the built up area boundary of Clenchwarton, as defined on Inset Plan 77 of the Proposals Map of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan (LP), 1998. This remains extant, and is part of the development plan. Clenchwarton includes scattered pockets of development, with several defined built up areas, which are separated from the main part of the settlement. The proposal would infill the area between the existing housing at Coronation Road, Main Road, and the commercial units to west of the site. It would consolidate the sporadic development, which characterises the area. 16. At present views into and out of the site are very limited due to the existing hedges. The appellant would accept a condition requiring the retention of the hedges, but the proposed dwellings would have finished floor levels of at least 3.25m above Ordnance Datum, and each have a minimum of 2 storeys, in www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/V2635/A/12/2175128 order to address the risk of flooding on the site, which is discussed further below. 17. My attention was drawn to the recently-built houses in Drain Road, which incorporate first floor accommodation within the roof space, and which have been designed with lower ridge heights than their immediate neighbours. However, these were clearly visible from within the site, and the appellant accepts that these do not have raised finished floor levels.
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]
  • 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]