Member login

ALGAO Events

See below for a list of ALGAO events over the coming 30 days.
You are not authorized to access this content.

Planning appeals

Planning appeal advice/guidance

England

Scotland

News items

Appeal decisions and Inspectors reports

The following provide examples of decisions and inspectors reports. However, although archaeology may be discussed in some detail the actual documents submitted to appeals are not available, and it is difficult to see in some cases how decisions were reached.

Case search

England

Building recording (listed and unlisted)

  • Great Shefford, Berks: APP/W0340/A/06/2026075 April 2007 Appeal Decision Refers to building recording condition.
  • Bedford Street, Derby: APP/C1055/A/07/2052307 December 2007 Appeal Decision Appeal dismissed - building on Local List.
  • Newton Abbot, Devon: APP/P1133/A/06/2030234 July 2007 Appeal Decision Appeal against buildng recording requirement - appeal dismissed.
  • Deptford High Street, London: APP/C5690/A/08/2093340 April 2009 Appeal against building recording. Main issue was whether the disputed condition would be necessary in the interests of the historic environment. Appeal Decision Appeal allowed.
  • Sale Green, Droitwich: APP/H1840/A/09/2115707 February 2010 Appeal Decision Appeal against refusal of planning permission to convert redundant Methodist Chapel to dwelling - appeal dismissed.
  • Potterells Farm, Welham Green, Herts: APP/C1950/A/10/2141173 March 2011 Appeal Decision Appeal against condition for recording of undesignated building - appeal dismissed. (post PPS 5)
  • Roman Road, London: APP/E5900/A/11/2143831 April 2011 Appeal decision Appeal against condition for recording of undesignated building - appeal dismissed. (post PPS 5)

Impact on historic building

  • Foxcote Farm, Oldnall Road, Stourbridge: APP/C4615/D/11/2160416 October 2011 Appeal Decision Appeal against decison to refuse planning permission for 2-storey extension to farmhouse. Appeal dismissed, reasons including- "The building is not statutorily or locally listed or in a conservation area, but even so, alterations or extensions to it should respect its character and be sympathetic to its appearance".
  • St Paulinus Church, Ollerton, Nottinghamshire: APP/B3030/A/11/2156935 November 2011 Appeal Decision Appeal against refusal of planning permission for a bank of pv cells on the roof of the south aisle of the church (Grade III building built 1931). Decision concluded that while the combined benefits of the scheme are significant, they do not outweigh the substantial harm that would be caused to this listed building; It also noted that it would be contrary to Policy HE9 of PPS5.
  • Tan House, Little Stretton, Shropshire: APP/L3245/E/11/2161099 December 2011 Appeal Decision Appeal against refusal of listed building consent for proposed photo voltaic panels on former tannery, Grade II*. Appeal dismissed - decision quotes PPS5 statement "intrusive interventions, such as the external mounting of microgeneration technology, can harm the significance of a heritage asset" and concudes that such harm would occur here.
  • Firsby Manor, Firsby, Spilsby, Lincolnshire: APP/D2510/E/11/2162264 January 2012 Appeal Decision Appeal against refusal of listed building consent for installation of 10 solar roof panels on a grade II listed building. Appeal dismissed. Decision concluded that the works would fail to preserve the special architectural or historic interest of the building, and that there were no demonstrated substantial public benefits that would outweigh the substantial harm that has been identified to the significance of the heritage asset. The works would be contrary to national policy in PPS5.
  • Woodfield House, Bawtry, Notts: APP/A3010/A/11/2164722 March 2012 Appeal against refusal of planning permission to demolish Woodfield House and construct replacement dwelling. Appeal dismissed; amongst factors conclusion notes re Woodfield House "As a heritage asset it thereby gains protection from Core Strategy Policy DM8." Appeal decision
  • Yuletide Cottage, Bakewell, Derbyshire: APP/M9496/E/12/2180010 October 2012 Appeal Decision Appeal against refusal of Listed Building Consent for reaplcement of existing single storey outrigger extension to the cottage which is a Grade II Listed and within a Conservation Area. Decision noted that the works would have a deleterious impact on the special architectural and historical interest, and fail to preserve the character of the CA, making reference to NPPF para 134. Appeal dismissed.

Decisions based on evaluation evidence

  • Caythorpe Well Site, Rudston, E Yorks: APP/E2001/A/06/2024097, APP/E2001/A/07/2037845 Feb 2008 Inspectors Report July 2007 IR Para guide to archaeology references - additionally other issues such as landscape and setting may be of interest to members. Appeal decision February 2008. Appeal allowed.
  • Merham, Cambs: APP/VO0510/A/06/2014221, APP/W0530/A/06/2014216, APP/Q0505/X/07/2045815 August 2008 Inspectors Report- May 2008.
    Appeal Decision - August 2008. Extracts from IR and decision letter
  • Swindon, Wilts: APP/U3935/A/08/2085605, APP/U3935/A/08/2090316 2009 Inspectors Report extract S106 agreement based on evaluation evidence | Full report May 2009 | Appeal Decision August 2009
  • Station Road, Feniton, Honiton, Devon, APP/U1105/A/12/2172708 September 2012 Appeal Decision Appeal against refusal of planning permission for housing development. The decision turned a recommendation for a normal recording condition on a housing development into an access condition. Para 49 indicates that the Inspector felt that evaluation trenching (which revealed Bronze Age field boundaries and contemporary pottery, in an area where we also have barrows) constituted a full scheme of investigation. Appeal allowed.

Pre-determination evaluation decision

Decisions in favour of pre-determination evaluation.

  • Buntingford, Herts: APP/J1915/A/06/2019803 December 2006 Appeal Decision Failure of the applicant to carry out an evaluation upheld as a reason for refusal (one of 7 reasons) - appeal dismissed.
  • Selby Carpet Depot, Selby: APP/N2739/A/08/2076591 September 2008 Appeal against the refusal of outline planning permission because it would affect a site of known archaeological interest, and no archaeological assessment or evaluation had been submitted with the application. Appeal Decision Appeal dismissed. The inspector concluded that he did not consider that adequate provision had been made for an archaeological assessment or evaluation of the appeal site, in the context of the local plan policy and the guidance within PPG16.
  • Swan Lane, Guidlford, Surrey: APP/Y3615/E/09/2095122 September 2009 Appeal agaonst refusal of planning permission for demolition. Issues included effect on character and appearance of CA and on any archaeological remains. Appeal Decision Appeal dismissed. Conclusion referred to harmful effect that proposals would have on the character and appearance of the conservation area and the failure to provide for the protection of any archaeological remains on the site.
  • Barkway Park, Royston, Herts: APP/M1900/A/10/2126390 November 2010 Appeal Decision No archaeological evaluation.
  • Stanford Dingley, Berkshire: APP/W0340/A/09.2112314 March 2010 Issues included whether the proposal would make appropriate provision to secure
    archaeological interests. Appeal Decision Noted that no archaeological evaluation had taken place and that while a condition could be imposed requiring approval and implementation of a programme of archaeological work, that would not be based on an evaluation of what might exist and how this should be taken into account in the proposed development.
  • Maestro Club, Castleford: APP/X4725/A/09/2094322 July 2009 Main issue the effect of proposals on the archaeology of the site. Appeal Decision. Appeal dismissed. Inspector rejected appellant's view that outline planning permission could be granted with a condition to secure the necessary archaeological investigation before development commences, as it was felt this would cause difficulties.
  • All Saints Church, Laleham, Staines: APP/Z3635/A/10/2136847/NWF February 2011 Appeal Decision Main issues included effect of development on archaeological remains. Inadequate evaluation information. Appeal dismissed. (Post PPS 5)
  • Bourne Mill, Guildford Road, Farnham: APP/R3650/A/11/2166024 June 2012 Issues included effect on archaeology, and whether DBA was sufficient. Lack of evaluation deemed to be counter to Local Plan Policy. Whilst the carried over Local Plan policies might have clinched the argument, the principle of evaluation prior to determination in order to establish potential and significance set out in the NPPF, paragraph 128, has been confirmed. Appeal Decision

Local Plan and policy

  • Tayfen Rd, BUry St Edmunds: APP/E3525/A/10/2120025 September 2010 Appeal Decision Second main issue was effect of development on an area of archaeological importance. Appeal dismissed. Concluded development would be contrary to LP policy HC9 and PPS5.
  • Middleton Lodge, Richmond: APP/P2745/A/09/2119601 December 2010 Issues included impact of the proposed development on Middleton Lodge Estate and
    more particularly on its heritage assets, their setting and the historic
    landscape. Appeal Decision Appeal allowed. Concluded that the proposal would not result in a harmful impact on, or the loss of significance of, the collective MLE heritage asset and would not be contrary to PPS5 policy HE9.
  • GAMA complex, Greenham Common: APP/W0340/A/11/2157350; APP/W0340/A/11/2157363; APP/W0340/A/11/2157365 December 2011 Appeals dismissed. A very useful defence of the PPS5 Principles and an interesting use of the 'Heritage Values' as espoused in Conservation Principles.Appeal decision

See also Chiverstone Farm, below.

National policy

  • 187 Kentish Town Road, London APP/X5210/A/11/2155198 December 2011 Appeal against refusal to extend time limit for planning permission granted 2007. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of
    the surrounding area having regard to the current local and national planning
    policies, the decision citing new planning policy (PPS5) since 2007 introducing the concept of non-designated heritage assets. The Appeal Decision concluded that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and be at odds with the advice in PPS5. Appeal dismissed.
  • Hunting Butts Farm, Swindon Lane, Cheltenham APP/B1605/A/11/2164597 June 2012 Appeal against refusal of outline planning permission for housing development. Appeal Decision The decision stated that the green belt location meant the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF did not apply to the proposal, adding that "paragraph 14 is clear that, even if relevant development plan policies are out of date, the presumption to grant permission does not apply."
  • Land between Medway Road and Cumberland Road, Gillingham, Kent APP/A2280/E/12/2173740; APP/A2280/A/12/2173709 September 2012 Appeal Decision Appeal against refuseal of Listed Building Consent for proposed access for proposed housing through a listed zone of tank traps. Main issues were effect of removal of some of the listed anti-tank pimples, and impact on Brompton Lines CA. Although the site was designated for housing in the 2003 Local Plan, this is post dated by listing of the asset. The Decision makes reference to NPPF paras 133 and 134 and the decision concluded that public benefits would not offset substantial harm to the heritage asset; it also noted that the proposal would conflict with Section 12 of the NPPF and Local Plan policies. Appeals dismissed.

See also Chiverstone Farm, below.

Setting issues

  • Mellor's Barn, Mentmore; APP/J0405/A/08/2076026/NWF December 2008 Main issue was the effect of the scheme on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside, the CA and the setting of the earth works.Appeal Decision Appeal dismissed. Permission was refused in part because of the harm that a barn conversion would cause to the character and appearance of a new conservation area which is largely defined by an unscheduled DMV.
  • Daventry, PP/Y2810/A/08/2071504, APP/M9570/A/08/2071505, APP/M9570/A/08/2082894, APP/Y2810/A/08/2083322, APP/M9570/A/08/2083327 March 2010 SAM setting issues. Inspectors Report extracts December 2009 Appeal Decision Appeal Dismissed.
  • Clerkenwell Road, London: APP/V5570/E/09/2118167 May 2010 Appeal Decision Appeal against refusal of planning permission for demolition of buildings. Issues included effect of development on character and appearance of CA and setting of LBs. Appeal dismissed.
  • Kent International Gateway Rail Freight Interchange APP/U2235/A/09/2096565 August 2010 Inspectors Report - Extract relating to historic environment. Full IR March 2010. Appeal Decision Appeal dismissed.
  • Bondway, Vauxhall, London: APP/N5660/A/10/2123877 February 2011 Appeal Decision Setting of LB and CA. Appeal dismissed - with regard to the impact of the proposal on the historic environmen the Sec of State agrement with the Inspector’s conclusions that while no heritage assets would be directly affected, the proposals might affect the settings of listed buildings, conservation areas, registered parks and the Westminster World Heritage Site. (Post PPS 5)
  • Bicton Industrial Estate, Kimbolton, Cambs: APP/H0520/A/11/2146394 March 2012 Appeal against refusal of planning permission for 4 wind turbines. Appeal dismissed. Setting of heritage assets was one of the factors considered. Appeal Decision
  • Quarrendon Fields, Aylesbury, Bucks: 10/00135/AOP (Appeal A) & 10/00136/APP (Appeal B) March 2012 Quarrendon Fields is a major green field residential development on the outskirts of Aylesbury (appeal A), plus a wind turbine (appeal B). The appeal was heard by public inquiry and was a Secretary of State decision. The heritage issues were heard by a specialist assessor (see Decision annex E) and covered the setting of a large scheduled monument and also the effect on on-site undesignated buried archaeology (late Iron Age/early Roman) of regional importance. Appeal A was rejected on both heritage counts.
  • Lyveden wind farm, Northamptonshire: High Court Judgement CO/423112012 8 March 2013 Application against appeal decision granting planning permission for the wind farm. Judgement concluded that the Inspector failed properly to interpret and apply the relevant planning policies on the effect of development on the setting of heritage assets, which meant that the balancing exercise, and stated that the decision ought to be quashed and the appeal re-considered.
  • Dale View Quarry, Lees Road, Stanton in Peak, Derbyshire, Appeal Ref: APP/M9496/W/15/3004872 Appeal Decision

Refusal on archaeological grounds

  • Harrington, Draughton, Northants: APP/Y2810/A/10/2125093 September 2010 Appeal Decision Appeal against planning permission for 7 turbine wind farm. Issues included impact of proposals setting and thereby significance of the Thor missile launch pads and association remains, and impact on other heritage assets. Appeal dismissed. Conclusions included that harm to the setting and interrelationship between the components of the Thor missile site would be such that it should outweigh the
    environmental benefit of the proposal.
  • Chiverstone Farm, Kenton, Devon: APP/J1155/A/11/2153460 September 2011 Appeal Decision. Main issue was the effect on archaeological remains - prehistoric burial remains, prehistoric/RB settlement and associated field systems, largely visible as cropmarks. Decision concluded that the proposals would place heritage assets at risk which would conflict with national and local planning policies for safeguarding archaeological sites. Appeal dismissed.

See also Quarrendon Fields (above)

(Mis)use of access condition

Possible reference if wishing to argue against this condition:

  • Upper Heyford, Bicester: APP/C3105/A/08/2080594 July 2009 Planning Inspectors Report: extract | Full Report

Infrastructure

  • Rookery South Resource Recovery Facility, Stewartby, Bedfordshire IPC decision (October 2011) The recommendation was to grant the DCO despite strong representations from English Heritage on the perceived substantial harm to the settings of Scheduled Monument Ampthill Castle, Grade II* Ampthill Park House, Ampthill Park (Registered Park, Grade 2) and Houghton House (Scheduled Monument and listed Grade 1), two conservation areas and the wider landscape setting of Marston Vale which is viewed from the higher ground of the Greensand Ridge

Miscellaneous

Scotland

  • Galtway Farm, Kirkudbright PPA-170-2039 August 2012 Appeal decision Appeal against refusal of planning permission for 2 wind turbines. Consideration included setting of ancient monuments: HS did not formally object to the proposal, but considered that it would have an impact on the setting of monuments in the vicinity of the appeal site. Decision concluded that the proposal would affect the setting of a SAM and would not be in accordance with structure and local plan policies. Appeal dismissed.
  • Broadmeadows Farm, Selkirk PPA-140-2029 January 2012 Appeal Decision Appeal against refusal of planning permission for 8 wind turbines. Appeal dismissed. Reasons include setting issue related to the 16th/17th century Newark Castle (SAM) in the centre of the Yarrow Valley.
  • Mossford, Rothiemay, Aberdeenshire PPA-110-2099 March 2012 Appeal Decision Appeal against refusal of planning permission for a single wind turbine. Appeal dismissed. Decision concluded that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the
    setting of the nationally important Crommey Castle and the regionally important Ardmeallie House and walled garden.
  • Culnaightrie Farm, Auchencairn, Dumfries & Galloway: PPA-170-2029 April 2012 Appeal Decision Appeal against refusal of planning permission for a wind turbine. Decision concludes that "the turbine’s very significant adverse effects on the
    setting of Suie Hill Fort outweigh the benefits of the scheme." Appeal dismissed.
  • West Kirkcarswell Farm, Dundrennan: PPA-170-2040 July 2012 Appeal Decision Appeal against non-determination of planning permission for wind turbines. Issues included impacts on settings of ancient monuments and the decision concluded that the proposal would "affect the setting of Scheduled Ancient Monuments in the locality and so would not accord with policy E12 – or with policy 54 of the local plan, which cross-refers
    to the terms of that structure plan policy". Appeal dismissed: planning permission refused.
  • Kirkibost, Isle of Lewis NA/CES/009 14 November 2012 Application for proposed wind farm called in by Scottish Ministers given the proposal’s possible detrimental impact on the setting of the Callanish Standing Stones Ancient Monument. the Report concluded that found the proposal to be damaging to the setting of the Callanish Standing Stones Ancient Monument (Callanish l) (also the landscape, tourist experience and local community) and recommended that the applicaiton be refused.

ALGAO general enquiries
01223 728592
admin [at] algao.org.uk

X