16/05/2024
********LONG ONE BUT WORTH THE READ REGARDING DEARNLEYS!!!!!!*********
3330292
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5
26. It is telling that the previous company which occupied the appeal site sought to
hire off-street car parking spaces. Whether or not these spaces could have
been removed at any point, they nevertheless meant that its actual on-street
parking demand was relatively low.
27. Furthermore, the appeal site has been vacant for a number of years. Whilst the
use has not been abandoned, there is nothing in the evidence before me to
indicate that the reinstatement of the former commercial use is a realistic or
probable prospect, given its constrained location in a village, surrounded by
dwellings and the appellant’s desire to obtain permission for a different use. I
therefore attach limited weight to the car parking requirements and traffic
generation for the existing use as a fallback position, in this instance.
28. There is no substantive evidence before me that the proposed scheme is the
only way of redeveloping the site. It is likely that a less intensive mixed-use
scheme would not result in the harmful impacts identified above. Whilst noting
that there is some support for the proposal, it does not equate to a lack of
harm. There are also objections relating to the specific scale of this proposal.
29. No objections were raised in relation to the principle of the proposed
development, the living conditions of neighbouring or future occupiers, land
contamination, flooding or drainage. Nonetheless, these matters weigh
neutrally in the planning balance.
30. The proposal would meet the Government’s objective for boosting housing
supply, particularly of smaller units through the efficient use of previously
developed land, although I note that the density of the scheme is significantly
above the minimum requirement set out at Policy SP5 of the LP. However,
there is no evidence before me of a shortfall in housing land supply in the
district, or that the proposal would meet a particular need for this type of
accommodation. Despite being suggested as affordable housing, no evidence
has been presented to demonstrate that the proposed dwellings would meet
the Framework’s definition of this particular tenure and there is no mechanism
to secure them as such. I therefore attach limited weight to this matter.
31. The appellant suggests that the proposal would be a sustainable form of
development in compliance with paragraph 11 of the Framework. However,
paragraph 12 is clear that development which conflicts with an adopted
development plan should usually be refused. Moreover, the Framework shares
similar aims to the development plan of preventing unacceptable impacts on
highway and pedestrian safety. Hence, I find that the policies of the Framework
taken as a whole do not weigh in favour of allowing the appeal.
Planning Balance and Conclusion
32. Whilst there are considerations that weigh in favour of the proposed
development, they are not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have found with
regard to highway and pedestrian safety. The proposal would conflict with the
development plan when taken as a whole and therefore no other material
considerations including the Framework, that indicate a decision should be
taken otherwise than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed.
M Clowes
The Planning Inspectorate deals with planning appeals, national infrastructure planning applications, examinations of local plans and other planning-related and specialist casework in England. Planning Inspectorate is an executive agency, sponsored by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Com...
