APP/F2605/A/14/2219722: : Land adjacent to 18 Mill Street. Appeal by Mr. Gidney against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision of an application for the extension to the time limit for implementing a planning permission. Reference: 3TL/2014/0001/TL Decision: The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted for an extension to the time limit for implementing planning permission 3PL/2007/0676/O subject to conditions. Summary: The Inspector noted that the application was turned away by the Council due to legal advice that failed to take into account the reserved matters application submitted in accordance with the time limit for submission of reserved matters in the outline permission. The Inspector concluded that the application to extend the time limit was properly made before the expiry of that limit. The main issue was whether there had been any significant changes in circumstances or policy to warrant a different determination. There have been no significant changes in either site circumstances or policies and the appeal is allowed.

APP/F2605/A/14/2222906: : Land at 8 Church Street: Appeal by Richard Bailey against the refusal of outline planning permission for residential development. Reference: 3PL/2013/1111/O Decision: The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission granted subject to conditions. Summary: The Inspector highlighted the main issue as whether the acknowledged advantages of the development would be outweighed by harm arising from the additional use of the vehicular access from Church Street and the loss of trees on the land. The Inspector concluded that concerns in relation to potential congestion, driver visibility at Church Street and next to the garages and disturbance to occupiers of property near the access were no greater than those that regularly occur where there are vehicular accesses onto roads where parking takes place. Some congestion and inconvenience could arise but the amount of traffic using the access would be small and the likelihood of drivers meeting where they would have to reverse or wait is within the limits of what is acceptable. The Inspector did not expect additional traffic to be particularly noticeable to occupiers of adjacent property with the exception of those at Nos. 8 & 10 who would experience some disturbance from traffic passing close to them. The Inspector concluded that whilst the trees contribute to the pleasant amenity iof the land, they do not have significant amenity value to the wider area and do block some light to the dwellings in Manor Drive. Replacement planting could be carried out. Having considered the drawbacks and advantages, the balance is firmly in favour of granting outline planning permission.

APP/F2605/A/14/2222906: LITCHAM: Land at 8 Church Street: Application for costs in respect of the above appeal. Decision: The application is refused Summary: Officers presented a succinct summary of the main issues at the planning committee and members received full reports before the meeting. The officer's report stated that the highway authority had no objections subject to conditions. Highway considerations were still an issue since they were a main concern raised by the Parish Council. The issue was debated in full. In respect of trees, members were property advised when the matter was debated. Members were made aware of discussions regarding affordable housing contributions. Since the S106 agreement had not been completed the advice of the officer's report to make the decision subject to the completion of the agreement was considered appropriate. The Inspector concluded that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense had not been demonstrated and that an award of costs was not justified.

APP/F2605/D/14/2218049: : Idlestone, Church Street: Appeal by Mrs. Witt against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a tiled porch. Reference: 3PL/2014/0197/F. Decision: The appeal is dismissed Summary: The Inspector concluded that, by reason of its unsympathetic design, scale and massing, the porch would be at odds with and cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the locality. It would also intrude into the setting of the Listed parish church. The harm identified to the character and appearance of the cottage and its surroundings and the concomitant harm to the significance of the Listed parish church is sufficient to justify the dismissal of the appeal.

APP/F2605/C/14/2216343 AND APP/F2605/C/14/2216344: : Land known as Moulders Meadow, Red Hall Lane, Southburgh. Appeals by Emma Mayes and Benjamin Mayes against an enforcement notice. The breach of planning control is "The material change of use of the land from agricultural land including use for the stationing of a portacabain static caravan and polytunnels for uses ancillary to agriculture to a mixed use of agricultural land with ancillary agricultural structures and the stationing of a caravan for mixed agricultural and residential use". The requirement of the notice is "Permanently cease the use of the caravan for residential purposes". Reference: ENF/2013/0191/PAR Decision: The appeals are dismissed and the enforcement notice upheld as varied replacing 6 calendar months by 9 months. Summary: The Inspector concluded that conditions of planning permission 3PL/2012/0931 (Erection of eco barn and retrospective consent for portacabin and static caravan and erection of polytunnels) and 3PL/2013/0941 (Extension to caravan (restroom) for use as changing room, refreshment area, office and storeroom (retrospective)) prohibit the residential use of the caravan and its extension and have the effect of excluding permitted development rights. Planning permission is required for the residential use. Permission is not granted by the 1995 Order and has not been granted on an application. The move to the site was a breach of condition 4 of 3PL/2012/0931 and the continued use is a breach of this condition and condition 2 of 3PL/2013/0941. The use conflicts with local and national policies relating to housing in rural areas. In respect of the compliance period, that put forward by the appellants is far longer than is needed. Nine months is considered a reasonable period to c9omply with the notice.