SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

REPORT TO:	Planning Committee 	7th March 2007	
AUTHOR/S:	Executive Director / Corporate Manager - Planning and 
Sustainable Communities	

appeals against planning decisions and enforcement action: summaries of decisions of interest – for information

Purpose

1.	To highlight recent Appeal decisions of interest forming part of the more extensive Appeals report, now only available on the Council’s website and in the Weekly Bulletin. 

Summaries

	D Fairey – Outline application for 11 dwelling units – Land r/o Newdigate House, Horseheath Road, Linton – Appeal allowed

2.	This appeal concerns a site for which an alternative scheme for eight houses and garages has been approved. This is subject to the completion of a legal agreement for affordable housing. The appeal scheme was refused on the grounds of the likely harm to the character and appearance of the area; the living conditions of nearby residents; overlooking of the nearby school swimming pool; and insufficient affordable housing. 

3.	The Council was concerned that the site is too small to accommodate 11 dwellings. This is particularly so given there is a dense spinney at the northern end, which should be retained.  The inspector noted that the spinney is in poor condition, but that it should be retained, at least in part, to provide an effective buffer between the site and the playing fields beyond. It should be managed and/or replaced with appropriate landscaping. While the indicative layout suggested a significant proportion of units with a more generous footprint and garage, the inspector was satisfied that there is ample scope to provide a higher proportion of smaller units in accordance with local plan policy. Given the spinney could be retained or suitably replaced, there neeld be no harm to the character or appearance of the area. 

4.	On the basis of the above, the inspector was also satisfied that a revised layout, incorporating smaller units could ensure that neighbours’ amenities were protected. Again, he placed emphasis on the need for a buffer zone to prevent new dwellings from being overly dominant. This would also ensure that there could be no overlooking of the pool and any unwanted attention at close quarters.

5.	Two affordable dwellings were proposed. The appellant did not, however, dispute the need for three affordable houses as required. While there was no proposed unilateral undertaking, the inspector was content to impose an appropriate condition in order to meet the tests set out in Policy HG7.

6.	Permission was therefore granted subject to conditions regarding the submission of reserved matters and the provision of three affordable dwellings. The latter condition would require a scheme to include their type and location on the site, their timing of construction and occupancy arrangements.

7.	The County Council had also asked for an education contribution in accordance with Local Plan Policy CS10.  While the Council argued that the contribution was necessary as part of its appeal statement, the inspector did not consider it was necessary. She noted that it was not a reason for refusal and the appellant had disputed the need. The relevant policy also refers to supplementary planning guidance on how the contribution would be applied, yet there is no such guidance. In the circumstances, she felt there was significant doubt that such a contribution was necessary.  

8.	Comment: This decision raises two significant issues. First, the Council’s requirement for a legal agreement to secure affordable housing has been waived in favour of a condition. This is not our practice and it is the first time this has happened at appeal. There is nothing inherently wrong in this approach, though it remains to be seen how the condition will be complied with given the complexities of securing provision under Policy HG7. The second point is the reluctance of the inspector to require education contributions. The County Council has been sent a copy of the decision and may need to justify its requirements more fully in future.

	Mrs K O’Brien – Enforcement action re siting of caravan, mobile home and utility block - Plot 15 Water Lane, Smithy Fen, Cottenham – Appeal dismissed

8.	This was yet another appeal involving a plot at Smithy Fen. The appeal was determined following a hearing at which the Ormiston Trust represented the appellant. The Parish Council also appeared and gave evidence.

9.	The District Council’s case was based on harm to the character and appearance of the area and centred on numerous previous appeal decisions, all of which had been in the Council’s favour. The inspector did not consider there were any circumstances that led her to come to a different conclusion in this case. The Council accepted the need for additional sites based on the recent needs survey but argued that this was not an appropriate site on which to grant temporary permission while the necessary search for sites was undertaken.

10.	The appellant is currently a single mother. She has three children of school age, one of who has a statement of Special Educational Needs and suffers from asthma. The inspector found that the need to provide for the children’s education should be given substantial weight. However, the appellant had admitted that she has not searched for another site and in the absence of this, there was nothing to show that a site could not be found elsewhere to allow the children to continue to attend their existing schools. The Council had given the family a year to comply with the enforcement notice and this was not iunreasonable. Other inspectors had already considered the possibility of a temporary permission and in the light of the “serious” harm that would be caused to the rural area, a temporary permission was unjustified. This harm would be “significant” even for a temporary period and was not outweighed by the other material considerations that lend support to the development. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the appellant has until 28 January to comply with the notice.

11.	Comment:  While there is perhaps nothing surprising in this decision, it at least confirms that inspectors continue to accept that Smithy Fen is not a suitable location to grant even a temporary planning permission. This is despite the requirements of Circular 1/2006 and the obvious shortage of sites within the District. 

S Duncan – Alteration and refurbishment of existing building, extension, boathouse and garage – Wildfowl Cottage, Baits Bite Lock, Horningsea  - Appeals dismissed - Appellant’s claim for costs dismissed.

12.	These appeals involved significant alterations and extensions to a listed building within the Green Belt.. The cottage lies close to the River Cam and is currently being renovated including the raising of the timber structure to reduce the risk of flooding. The appeals were considered by way of a hearing.

13.	The proposed single-storey extension and boathouse were found to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Both would cause harm to this flat and predominantly open area. The inspector found that the listed building has been the subject of careful and considerable well-executed works to ensure its future well-being. A rearward extension was acceptable in principle and need not compromise the strong linear form of the building. In this case, however, he agreed that the vertical chimney device would adversely affect the character of the building, being over-dominant and introducing a “blocky” shape and bulk to the space alongside the roof slope. As such, this feature would harm the architectural interest and setting of the listed building. In turn, both the proposed extension and boathouse would harm the Baits Bite Lock Conservation Area.  

14.	Planning permission would therefore have to be refused unless there were very special circumstances to outweigh the identified harm. The appellant cited reasons of flooding, noise from the A14, living accommodation to a modern standard, the need for additional space and enhancement of the site generally. The inspector found that these did not amount to very special circumstances and both appeals were therefore dismissed.

15.	The appellant made a claim for costs on the basis that the final decision to refuse the applications was made behind closed doors. It, was unexpected after all the previous discussions and was unreasonable. The Council had made factual errors over details of the proposal and had these been put right, the decision might have gone the other way.

16.	The Council responded by stating that the decisions had been taken with due regard to the development plan. The reasons for refusal had been adequately defended both in the Council’s statement and at the hearing. The appellant’s concerns were really centred on how the decision to refuse was taken, rather than the merits of the decision. The so-called factual errors did not go to the heart of the decision. The lack of detail on the drawings had not helped.

17.	The inspector found nothing unusual in the way the applications had been determined. The Council had correctly analysed the actual effect of the proposed extension.  There was a lack of detail on the drawings though this aspect did not affect the overall conclusion. There had been no unreasonable behaviour on behalf of the Council. An award of cost was therefore unjustified.

Car Park Valeting Ltd – Enforcement action against use of car park for valeting operation - Tesco Stores, Bar Hill – Appeal dismissed 

18.	Planning permission for a hand car wash and valeting operation has twice been refused. The second decision was on the grounds that the current locvation causes noise and disturbance to the adjacent school and a loss of car parking spaces within the main Tesco car park. Enforcement action was authorised to cease the use and reinstate the car parking spaces that have been lost.

19.	The operation is close to Bar Hill Community School and the Village Square.  The Council alleged that an unacceptable level of noise arises from the use of power generators and power operated equipment. Complaints had been received from the Head teacher of Bar Hill Primary School The appellant had replied by arguing that noise levels generated are below the general background noise level in the area.  In doing so, several noise reports from operations elsewhere in the country had been submitted as juctification.

20.	At the time of his visit, the inspector observed that only hand washing of vehicles was being carried out. His visit was also during the school holidays, so there was no opportunity to assess the situation within the school building. Based on his own observations, he accepted that it would be beneficial to open the classroom windows during warm weather. He was in no doubt that the two classrooms closest to the car park are affected by noise when the washing and valeting operation are being carried out.. The proximity of the village square did not add any weight to the conclusion on noise and disturbance. 

21.	The car park serving Tesco and the nearby parade of shops has about 500 spaces. The Council had argued that the operation has led to the permanent loss of nine spaces and additional spaces while customers waited to use the facility. The appellant claimed that only one space has been lost as customers have their vehicles cleaned while doing their shopping.  In any event, the loss of nine spaces out of 500 is negligible.  Bar Hill Council had argued that spaces are at a premium and overspill parking in the adjoining streets causes a hazard. Neither the District Council nor the local highway authority had objected on grounds of highway safety.

22.	The inspector found there was a lack of evidence on any traffic difficulties or whether customers were indeed combining trips when using the facility. He reasoned, that if an alternative site could be found that does not cause a noise nuisance, a temporary permission may be appropriate to allow the impact of the use on parking to be monitored. This was, however, a matter for the Council to consider. It did not override the effect of noise and disturbance on the school.

Scotsdale Garden Centre – Display of three non-illuminated signboards – Cambridge Road, Great Shelford – Appeal allowed - Appellant’s claim for costs dismissed.

23.	The main issue in this appeal was whether the signs would respect the character and appearance of the area which is within the Green Belt and an Area of Special Control of Advertisements. Consent had been granted at the same time for other signs within the site. The appeal was considered by way of a hearing.

24.	The proposed signs are to be sited alongside the entrance into the site and are smaller than those currently being displayed. They follow the same house style as an existing roadside sign comprising a combination of a mainly white background with green and yellow banding and a sunflower motif. The signs contain information and directions about the business. 

25.	Two of the signs are sited well back from the main road  and the inspector found this to be “… a very large development similar in size and scale to an out of town supermarket”. In his opinion the signs would be modest in size with a neat and co-ordinated appearance. Their position within low hedges would help to integrate them into their well landscaped surroundings. The other sign would be further forward but would only be visible to those alongside the road frontage to the garden centre. It would be seen within a well manicured area of lawn, shrubs and trees. When visible, it would be seen as part of a large commercial enterprise. This was considered to be part of a suburban setting, rather than a rural one as argued by the Council. The sign was not unduly large and would respect the character and appearance of the area. 

26.	The claim for costs was on the grounds that for some 18 months “… the appellant had bent over backwards to be of assistance, but the reaction of the Council had been hostile”. The Council’s officer at the hearing “… had not heard some of the nonsense at previous meetings”.  The Council had failed to produce evidence to justify the alleged harm. It had ignored the appellant’s commercial requirements from the beginning. The planning officer’s views were subjective with a degree of control that was excessive and unreasonable.

27.	For the Council, it was argued that the appellant could have submitted an application at any time over the last 18 months and appealed as necessary. The so-called delay was not a reason for seeking costs. During the course of the application, the Council had asked the appellant for more information, but they had not replied. The reasons for refusal met the tests set out in the circular and the alleged harm had been properly substantiated. This was clearly a subjective issue and there was nothing inherently unreasonable in the Council’s approach.

28.	The inspector concluded there was no clear evidence that the Council had been uncooperative or unhelpful prior to the appeal.  It had reasonable grounds for refusing consent and it was not unreasonable for the applicant to have to appeal on order to seek an overturning of the Council’s decision. As such, there had been no unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense.

O2 UK Ltd – Erection of 15m high telecommunications monopole – London Road, Gt Shelford  - Appeal allowed 

29.	This appeal involved an area in which there are already two monopoles within the grass verge that separates the footpath/cycleway from the carriageway. There are also existing traffic signs and street lighting columns. While the monopole would be visible from both directions, the inspector found that it would be seen in the context of mature deciduous and coniferous trees. The monopole would create an additional vertical element in the street scene and be some 3m taller than those existing, but would not appear unduly prominent or incongruous. Provided it was finished in a recessive colour, it would not be unduly obtrusive or led to visual clutter.

30.	The Council had questioned the availability of other sites, but had not suggested any possible alternative. In any event, the presence of nearby trees suggested that other sites may be more visually intrusive. This was situation where the presence of several slimmer structures was likely to be preferable to a significantly larger structure that would allow mast sharing.

31.	Both Stapleford Parish Council and two local residents had expressed concerns about health implications of the proposal.  In line with most applications, the inspector accepted the mast would comply with ICNIRP guidelines and would therefore not give rise to a health risk.

32.	Permission was granted subject to conditions which require the monopole is painted olive green and the base of the mast and the floor level of the associated equipment cabin is at a level to prevent flooding.