Killian Garvey, acting for Wellingborough Borough Council, secures the dismissal of 59 dwellings (including affordable homes) at land west of 123 High Street, Irchester, Wellingborough.
The framework of the planning case was essentially agreed between the parties. The central issue was whether the development proposal conformed with the development plan – namely whether there would be harm in terms of landscape and heritage arising out the development proposal.
The development proposal represented the third occasion that the Appellants had attempted to secure consent in respect to the land. The previous two occasions were for much larger developments. Whilst the previous inspectors had refused consent, on the most recent occasion the inspector had identified how the land could be developed without generating any landscape or heritage harm. The Appellant’s case was that they had broadly followed this guidance to produce a scheme that was sensitive to the area and thus did not generate any harm.
However, the inspector accepted the Council’s case that the development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the Grade 1 listed church and that the landscape was a ‘valued landscape’ within the context of paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Accordingly, the inspector found that there was conflict with the development plan and that the development proposal was not sustainable development.
The appeal was made by Barwood Strategic Land II LLP, who were represented by Satnam Choongh.
To view a copy of the Appeal Decision click here
Emotional deregulation and the use of anticipatory declarations in the Court of Protection
When is a settlement not full and final? Tomlins and the CCA
© Copyright 2021 Kings Chambers. All rights reserved.
Please click here to view our current guidelines