The Airfield to the north of Marsworth has a controversial history, affecting several local parishes. This webpage is designed to provide information on recent and current activity concerning it.
Recent planning applications to extend use of 2 buildings whose temproary planning status had expired were refused by AVDC Planning.
Marsworth Airfield - Corry Cashman Initiative.
The former Marsworth airfield is partly in three parishes, two districts and two counties. Consequently, planning for its future in a co-ordinated way presents problems. Informal communications between the different local authorities have not always been as effective as they might be. Therefore, at a recent District Council meeting, Corry Cashman proposed a motion asking that the AVDC planning department liaise with the respective planning departments of Bucks County Council, Herts County Council and Dacorum District Council to agree a joint strategy for the future of the airfield site and to make an approach to open joint negotiations with the owner. The motion has been considered favourably and a joint approach has been agreed.
Appeal Decisions
Inquiry held on 20 and 21 May 2008
Site visit made on 22 May 2008
by Simon Berkeley BA MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:
for Communities and Local Government 9 July 2008
The Planning Inspectorate
4/11 Eagle Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN
.. 0117 372 6372
email:enquiries@pins.gsi.gov.uk
Marsworth Airfield (South Site), Long Marston Road, Marsworth, Buckinghamshire HP23 4NF
• Each appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an
application for planning permission.
• The appeals are made by Skim Milk Supplies Ltd against Aylesbury Vale District Council.
Appeal A: APP/J0405/A/07/2047161
Units 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 30
• The application reference 06/02691/APP, is dated 20 October 2006.
• The development proposed is a builder’s yard including storage of building materials.
Appeal B: APP/J0405/A/07/2047201 Unit 16
• The application reference 07/00760/APP, is dated 15 March 2007.
• The development proposed is B1(c) light industrial.
Appeal C: APP/J0405/A/07/2047211 Unit 13
• The application reference 07/00843/APP, is dated 23 March 2007.
• The development proposed is storage.
Appeal D: APP/J0405/A/07/2047219 Unit 17
• The application reference 07/00728/APP, is dated 12 March 2007.
• The development proposed is retrospective planning permission for use as a motor cycle
training site.
Appeal E: APP/J0405/A/07/2047223 Unit 25
• The application reference 07/00566/APP, is dated 28 February 2007.
• The development proposed is storage of vintage car parts and occasional auction of
vintage car parts.
Appeal F: APP/J0405/A/07/2047616 Unit 14 (rear)
• The application reference 07/01041/APP, is dated 17 April 2007.
• The development proposed is vehicle storage and restoration.
Decisions
1. I dismiss Appeal A, reference APP/J0405/A/07/2047161, and refuse planning
permission for a builder’s yard including storage of building materials.
2. I dismiss Appeal B, reference APP/J0405/A/07/2047201, and refuse planning
permission for B1(c) light industrial.
3. I dismiss Appeal C, reference APP/J0405/A/07/2047211, and refuse planning
permission for storage.
4. I dismiss Appeal D, reference APP/J0405/A/07/2047219, and refuse
(retrospective) planning permission for use as a motor cycle training site.
5. I dismiss Appeal E, reference APP/J0405/A/07/2047223, and refuse planning
permission for storage of vintage car parts and occasional auction of vintage
car parts.
6. I dismiss Appeal F, reference APP/J0405/A/07/2047616, and refuse planning
permission for vehicle storage and restoration.
Procedural matters
7. As set out above, there are six appeals which relate to different units within the
same larger former airfield site. Although I have considered each proposal on
its individual merits, to avoid duplication I have dealt with the six schemes
together in this document, except as otherwise indicated.
8. The applications for appeals A and D state that they relate to Marsworth Airfield
South Site, and unit 4 and hardstanding, respectively. However, the statement
of common ground clarifies that appeal A covers units 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and
30, and that the appeal plans show the appeal D site as being unit 17. They
were generally referred to by the latter unit numbers at the Inquiry, and I refer
to them accordingly in this document, for the sake of consistency and clarity.
9. The Council has referred to Policy RA1 of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan,
adopted in January 2004. Because this has not been saved under the terms of
a direction made under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, I have given it little weight.
Main issues
10. The main issues in all six appeals are the effect of the proposed development
on the character and appearance of the countryside, whether it is acceptable in
principle in this location, and its effect on highway safety.
Reasons
11. All of the appeals sites lay within the southern portion of the former RAF
Marsworth Airfield, commissioned during World War II. Most of the buildings
on the complex were built around that period, in association with its military
use, including those that are the subject of these appeals. More recently, the
wider site and many of the buildings have been used for agriculture, though a
lot of them have fallen into disrepair, to varying degrees. The changes of use
proposed by these appeals would involve works to the buildings, to improve
their condition and make them suitable for their intended purpose.
Effect on the character and appearance of the countryside
12. The appeals buildings comprise Nissen huts, and single storey brick and
concrete buildings with asbestulux roofs. The appeal E building is a large
hangar, constructed of aluminium panels fixed to a steel frame, held upright by
steel cables under tension. In my view, the form of the Nissen huts and
hangar does not reflect that of buildings commonly found in the countryside,
and they bear little resemblance to farm buildings. Though the shape, size and
materials of the other buildings may be comparable to some agricultural
buildings, I saw none similar on my site visit, and the appellant has not
identified any specific examples nearby. On the whole, considered individually,
the appeals buildings are not in keeping with the surrounding generally rural
landscape, and do not blend into it.
13. Considered collectively, and having regard to their form, regular arrangement,
the layout of the wider site access serving them and the surrounding buildings,
the existing appeals buildings appear unmistakeably as airfield structures.
Because of this, in my view, regardless of their condition, the units are
currently incongruous. Though close to some houses along Long Marston
Road, they generally appear as an isolated development in the open
countryside, visually disconnected from the nearest villages and their
surroundings.
14. While the buildings are generally hidden from Long Marston Road by the line of
trees along the frontage, I do not accept that this means their effect on the
character and appearance of the countryside is significantly lessened. It is
their presence in this location that causes harm. Furthermore, though I note
that the Marsworth Airfield North Site, also known as Cheddington Airfield, is
not distant, it does not contribute significantly to the character and appearance
of the appeals sites more immediate surroundings, and does not define it.
15. Overall, in my opinion, the appeals buildings currently look out of place in this
generally rural landscape, and detract from the intrinsic qualities of the
surrounding countryside. Whilst the appeals proposals would undoubtedly
result in the condition of the buildings being improved, this would not address
my concerns about the visual impact of their form in this location.
16. On the contrary, it seems likely to me that allowing any of these appeals would
prolong the presence of the buildings involved, unacceptably protracting the
significant visual harm caused. Though not ideal or desirable, I agree with the
Council, and paragraph 10.36 of the Local Plan, that even if the buildings are
unused and derelict, the short term effect on the landscape before they are
taken down or fall down is more acceptable than the extended existence of
buildings that I judge not to be in keeping with the rural surroundings. To my
mind, in line with paragraph 10.36, the buildings detract from the landscape
sufficiently to justify rejecting the appeals on this basis. Even though unit 13
and the rear of unit 14 would be likely to take longer to fall down, as works
have already been undertaken to them, this does not alter my findings in
respect of appeals C and F. Though I recognise paragraph 19 of Planning
Policy Guidance Note 4: Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms
(PPG4) prefers buildings to be used appropriately than to stand wholly or
partially empty, this should not be at the expense of the rural landscape.
17. Furthermore, the activities associated with the uses proposed by appeals A, B,
C, E and F would introduce an industrial character and appearance to the units,
particularly where outside storage is likely to occur. In these cases, the
proposed developments would worsen the existing situation, even if the outside
storage and other activities covered by the certificates of lawfulness for
planning purposes were to occur.
18. I therefore conclude that the development proposed in all six appeals would
harm the character and appearance of the countryside. This would conflict
with Local Plan Policy RA11, which endorses the re-use of buildings that are
generally in keeping with the rural surroundings, and its underlying aims set
out in paragraph 10.36. It would also be at odds with Planning Policy
Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7), which aims to
protect the countryside for its intrinsic character and beauty. Though
paragraph 10.38 of the Local Plan says the Council favours employment rather
than residential re-use of rural buildings, this principle, also set out in PPS7,
does not mean the effect of the proposed developments on the character and
appearance of the countryside should be ignored, or set aside.
Whether the proposed developments are acceptable in principle in this location
19. To my mind, there are two main strands to this issue. The first is whether the
developments would meet the relevant policy tests, and the second is whether
this location is a sustainable one.
20. Paragraph 17 of PPS7 says the Government’s policy is to support the re-use of
appropriately located and suitably constructed existing buildings in the
countryside where this would meet sustainable development objectives.
Reuse for economic development purposes is preferable. It also says planning
authorities should set out policy criteria for permitting such re-use in relevant
development plan documents.
21. The main parties disagree about whether Local Plan Policy RA11 or RA29
provides the relevant local policy test. It seems to me that they are not
mutually exclusive, and as both relate to employment proposals and generally
reflect PPS7, neither should be disregarded.
22. The appeals sites are unquestionably outside the built-up area of settlements,
where Policy RA11 says the Council endorses the re-use of buildings that are of
a permanent and substantial construction and generally in keeping with the
rural surroundings, for non-residential purposes that fortify the rural economy.
I agree that the employment uses proposed would contribute to the rural
economy. The main parties dispute whether the buildings proposed to be reused
are of a permanent and substantial construction, and whether the works
to them would amount to major reconstruction. Even if I were to agree with
the appellant on this point, as I have already concluded the buildings are not in
keeping with the rural surroundings, the proposed developments would not
meet Policy RA11 in this respect.
23. Policy RA11 further says the scale of such schemes should not conflict with the
strategy of concentrating development in the main settlements. My concern
here is that the appeals schemes, taken together, would result in an
employment site of some considerable scale, particularly when combined with
the areas for which certificates of lawfulness have been issued, and the areas
with temporary planning permission for employment related uses. In my
opinion, the size of the employment site that these appeals would result in
could undermine the Council’s strategic aim, and would not support it.
24. In this respect, I am mindful of the appellant’s intentions, confirmed at the
Inquiry, to extend development on the wider site beyond the appeals units. To
allow these appeals would make it more difficult for the Council to resist both
the renewing of the temporary planning permissions, which expire in November
2008, and other proposals to re-use the numerous other buildings on the
complex. This is not a matter on which my decisions on these appeals have
turned. Nonetheless, it adds some weight to my concerns about the scale of
development, and its effect on the strategy of concentrating development in
the main settlements.
25. Policy RA29 says that outside the built-up areas of settlements and identified
employment areas, the Council will resist proposals for new employment
buildings. The lawful use of the appeals buildings is for agriculture. Though
not proposing new buildings, these appeals would result in new employment
buildings. In any event, I disagree that the works to the buildings must
amount to establishing new buildings in the countryside for this policy to apply.
The text at paragraph 10.73, which supports this policy, explains that there
should normally be a presumption against the establishment of new
employment uses in the countryside, such as those proposed here.
Furthermore, paragraph 10.72 clarifies that whilst existing uses should be
permitted to continue, given the open character and appearance of the former
aerodrome sites and their relative remoteness from populated areas, they are
considered inappropriate locations for expansion or redevelopment.
26. It is clear to me that the appeals sites are not in a sustainable location of the
kind envisaged by PPS7. The key principles set out at paragraph 1 require
decisions on development proposals to be based on sustainable development
principles, particularly in relation to accessibility.
27. Because of the size of the units and the nature of the proposed uses, the
appeals A, B and E developments would have the potential to generate
significant numbers of vehicle movements. PPS7 says that such developments
should be located in or next to towns or other service centres that are
accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. The main parties agree this
is not such a location, and I concur.
28. PPS7 further says that decisions on the location of developments not likely to
generate large numbers of trips should, where possible, give people the
greatest opportunity to access service centres by public transport, walking and
cycling. Given the uses proposed by appeals C, D and F, I consider these fall
into this category. However, these sites are not near to any local service
centre, and the local facilities at the closest villages of Marsworth and
Gubblecote are limited. Gubblecote has no public footpath link from the former
airfield site, and that to Marsworth is fragmented. There are no cycle lanes
passing the site, it is not on a bus route, and the closest bus stops are in
Marsworth and Gubblecote.
29. Consequently, all public transport journeys between the site and the nearest
villages involve walking or cycling along Lukes Lane and/or Long Marston Road.
For reasons expanded below, I regard the current nature of these country lanes
to be discouraging to both. Though I acknowledge that some walk these
routes to the bus stops, the hazards for people walking or cycling would be
greater if I were to allow these appeals, to the extent that they would be
unlikely to feel safe.
30. Overall, I consider the sustainability credentials of this location to be poor. The
appeals sites are not adjacent to the nearest villages, and though not distant,
their accessibility problems diminish their connections, such that they are not
closely related to Marsworth or Gubblecote. It is highly likely that people
coming and going to work at the appeals units would do so using a private
motor vehicle, and that numerous other trips would be made in connection with
most of the activities proposed. Moreover, people at the units would have very
limited opportunities to access service centres by other means. Even if the
appeals A, B and E schemes were considered unlikely to generate large
numbers of trips, they would fail to meet this key principle of PPS7.
31. I therefore conclude that all six appeals would introduce development outside
the built-up area of settlements that would not be appropriate in this
countryside location, and consequently would conflict with Local Plan Policy
RA11, the aim of Policy RA29 and the intentions of PPS7. Furthermore, they
would represent unsustainable forms of development which would cause
environmental harm by virtue of the additional motor vehicle trips likely to be
generated, and consequently would be unacceptable in principle in this
location. As such, they would conflict with the Government’s policy and key
principles set out in PPS7.
Effect on highway safety
32. To arrive at the airfield entrance, vehicles must use Long Marston Road, and
Lukes Lane if travelling from the west. Outside Marsworth and Gubblecote, this
stretch of highway has a speed limit of 60 miles per hour. Many parts of it, in
both directions, are narrow and winding, with bends where forward visibility is
limited by hedgerows, and where large vehicles in particular would require
most of the carriageway width. In addition, to the west, parts of Lukes Lane
narrow to below the 4.8 metres Manual for Streets shows is needed for a
commercial vehicle and car to pass. Its junction with Wingrave Road and Tring
Road has poor visibility, particularly to the left, and the limited exit radius
would require large vehicles to use the full road width to turn. Furthermore, to
the east, the limited width of the Red Lion Bridge in Marsworth restricts traffic
to single file. Its steep gradient on the western approach, along with the
limited forward visibility, poses a risk of accidents occurring and the possibility
of large vehicles grounding. Combined with the bridge’s weight restriction of
17 tonnes, these factors increase the likelihood of larger vehicles using the
narrower route along Lukes Lane.
33. For all these reasons, I have concerns about the effect of the proposed
developments on highway safety. With the exception of appeals C and D, it
seems likely to me that they would result in movements by HGVs or large
commercial vehicles, which would unavoidably use Lukes Lane and/or Long
Marston Road. In my opinion, even a generally low level of trips by large
vehicles would give rise to an unacceptable degree of risk to highway users’
safety, including the occupiers of those properties that front directly onto Lukes
Lane. This would be compounded by the increase in other vehicle journeys the
proposals would lead to, from employees coming to and leaving work, and
undertaking normal business activities. In particular, although limited in
number, the appellant estimates the appeal E proposals would generate 200 to
300 traffic movements on auction days, with further trips on the two viewing
days and two collection days associated with each auction. In my view, this
volume would worsen the highway safety situation significantly, even if all
these journeys were by car, and not larger vehicles.
34. I therefore conclude that the developments proposed in appeals A, B, E and F
would be harmful to highway safety. This would conflict with the aims of
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport, which seeks to ensure that jobs
are located in places that offer realistic, safe and easy access.
35. The appellant says that appeal C relates to the storage of personal effects and
a motor home. Given the proposed motor cycle training use, the appeal D site
is restricted in area, and activities would be likely to be low key as a
consequence. Because of this, I accept that the traffic movements generated
by these developments, though not sustainable, would be sufficiently limited to
avoid significant highway safety problems. I therefore conclude that the
developments proposed by appeals C and D would not result in significant harm
to highway safety.
36. However, this must be considered against their harm to the character and
appearance of the countryside, and the environmental harm they would cause
by virtue of the additional motor vehicle trips likely to be generated. In my
view, the harmful effects of the latter factors outweigh the absence of harm to
highway safety.
37. I recognise that one of the certificates of lawfulness includes the parking of
HGVs on a considerable area. I agree that this could lead to a significant
amount of HGV traffic on the immediate local highway. Though I have no
indication that such use is likely to re-commence, there is nothing to prevent it
from doing so. This possibility adds to my concerns about highway safety, and
supports my findings in this respect.
Other matters
38. That the proposed uses would have some economic benefits is clear, and I
acknowledge that the units currently used for employment purposes serve a
local demand. I have no reason to believe that the appeals units would not be
in demand, particularly as the appellant says similar sites in the area are few.
Nevertheless, it seems to me unlikely that the uses proposed would create
significant numbers of jobs, or that their economic benefits would be more than
modest. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the local economy
requires fortification by these kinds of uses, or that there is an overriding need
for them in this location. On this basis, I consider the economic benefits would
be insufficient to outweigh the harm I judge the schemes would cause.
39. I have taken account of local residents’ comments that current businesses
operating from some of the units cause no problems. I fully appreciate that
the people running these enterprises earn their livelihood and support their
families from them, and that, in some cases, have already invested money in
the sites. I particularly note that finding other suitable premises may prove
difficult, and that it may even be necessary to make employees redundant.
These are important matters, and I give weight to them. However, the
negative impacts I consider the proposed developments would cause would be
significant and long term. Because of this, the personal or commercial
difficulties that individuals or firms may face are not sufficient to outweigh the
harm that would be caused.
40. I recognise that the lawful agricultural use of the sites could result in intensive
farming activities involving large vehicles over 17 tonnes using Lukes Lane, and
that pig farming operations caused problems for neighbours in the past.
Nonetheless, any resumption of agricultural activities would be likely to have
less negative impacts than the appeals schemes, and in any event does not
justify allowing the proposed developments and the harmful impacts they
would result in.
41. Some local residents say the airfield site is of historic value, and that the
appeals should be allowed because the condition the buildings would be
improved. I grant that the airfield has historic roots. Nevertheless, neither it
nor the buildings on it have been identified as of particular historic interest, or
are otherwise protected in planning terms. As such, I am not persuaded that
the appeals should be allowed for this reason.
Conclusion
42. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeals should be dismissed.
Simon Berkeley
INSPECTOR
Appearances
For the appellant:
Mr Guthrie McGruer, Solicitor
He called
Mr Tobin Jones Tobin Jones Property, Pevensey House, 27 Sheep
FPCS MNAEA Street, Bicester OX26 6JF
Mr Giles Ferris Stimpsons Eves Chartered Surveyors, 74A High
BSc (Hons) MRICS Street, Newport Pagnell MK16 8AQ
Mr Raymond Cole Blake Lapthorn Tarlo Lyons, Seacourt Tower, West
BA (Hons) BTP Way, Oxford OX2 0FB
For the local planning authority:
Mr Christopher Boyle, of Counsel
He called
Mr Brian Hall BMH Planning Services, 19 Overslade Manor Drive,
MRTPI Rugby CV22 6EB
For the Rule 6(6) Party, Mr Peter Dean:
Mr Peter Taylor, Solicitor
He called
Mr Ian Brazier Abington Consulting Engineers Ltd, 4 Coldstream
BEng (Hons) CEng MICE Lane, Hardingstone, Northampton NN4 6DB
Interested persons:
Robert Kennedy Timbers, Lower Icknield Way, Marsworth, Near Tring HP23 4LN - Marsworth Parish Council
Michael Tomlinson Sunnymead, Tring Road, Long Marston, Tring HP23 4QL - Tring Rural District Parish Council
Lorraine Penn 9 Long Marston Road, Tring HP23 4NF
Julian Penn 9 Long Marston Road, Tring HP23 4NF
Jill Finlan Brookside Cottage, Lukes Lane, Gubblecote, Tring HP23 4QQ - Tring Rural District Parish Council
Denise Simmons 1 Lukes Lane, Gubblecote, Hertfordshire HP23 4QQ
Documents
1 The Council’s notification letters, including a list of those notified.
2 Letters of representation, including from Tring Rural Parish Council, Marsworth Parish
Council, Julian and Lorraine Penn, Len and Margaret Davis, Roland Wollington, Mark
Bosher, and Jonathan C Smith and Sally J Smith.
3 The statement of common ground, signed on behalf of the appellant and Council.
4 A photograph from Denise Simmons.
5 Council agendas and minutes of meeting held.
6 Statement by Antony Archdeacon.
7 Applications and decisions document of the Traffic Commissioner for the Eastern
Traffic Area.
8 Letter of objection from Corry Cashman, District Councillor for Cheddington Ward.
9 Appeal decision reference APP/P0430/A/08/2064279, relating to Unit 32, Old Airfield
Industrial Estate, Cheddington Lane, Long Marston, Tring, Hertfordshire HP23 4QR
10 A statement from Robert Kennedy, in lieu of a verbal closing submission.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
APPEAL BY MR DENNIS CAIRNS
UNIT F1, AIRFIELD INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, CHEDDINGTON LANE, LONG MARSTON
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended)
_____________________________________________________________
NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL
AGAINST REFUSAL TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
_____________________________________________________________
Notice is hereby given that Mr Dennis Cairns has lodged an appeal against the decision of Buckinghamshire County Council to refuse to grant planning permission for a revised layout of the site, retention of the trommel and an increase in the number of permitted vehicle movements from 24 (12 in and 12 out) to 84 per day (42 in and 42 out).
The Council's reasons for refusal are set out in the report to and minutes from the Council's Development Control Committee held on 21st December 2007 which considered the application and which can be found in full on the Council's web site.
These are summarised as follows:-
The applicant has failed to operate the site in the period since 16th January 2007 in accordance with the details set out in application 06/20008/AWD or in accordance with consent 02/02229/ACC. Paragraph 5.5.3 of the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2004 - 2016, states that an operator's past record of compliance with planning control is a material consideration in the consideration of new development proposals. It is therefore considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate a satisfactory past record of compliance with planning control and that planning permission should therefore be refused.
The proposed increase in vehicle movements would generate a significant additional level of disturbance to the amenity of local residents and other road users by way of noise, vibration and the additional number of traffic movements contrary to the provisions of policies TR1A, TR11 and policies 28 and 30 of the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2004 - 2016.
The Appellant grounds of appeal are:-
"Refusal of retention of trommel is going against all other waste policies and waste reduction strategies to deal with waste with a view to reducing waste going to landfill. Section19 & 39 of the development control committee report states that on the 16th January when the application was first considered committee agreed to support the proposal due to "The acute need for more recycling facilities, the fact that the site had an existing recycling use and was on an airfield with lawful commercial and industrial uses. The need for this facility has not decreased in fact due to the recent implementation of the landfill directive which requires all waste to be pretreated before any residue is sent to landfill the need for this site is now far more acute. The issue that as stated in 19 & 39 of the development control committee that caused all interest and objection to the previously recommended application has been the late amendment of additional daily vehicle movements. In light of this we are prepared to drop this contentious issue to enable the other elements of the application to presumably be able to return to a recommended status".
If you would like to view the documents relating to this appeal you may do so at the Council's Offices at County Hall, Aylesbury, Bucks HP20 1UA during normal opening hours but please telephone 01296 383638 in advance to arrange an appointment.
You are now invited to make any comments or express your views about the matter. Wherever possible you should send three copies of your comments to the Planning Inspectorate, 3/18 Eagle, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN and quoting reference number APP/P0430/A/08/2078339/NWF. Any comments you wish to make must be received by no later than 14th August 2008. You should be aware that your comments will be disclosed to the main parties to the appeal and may be read out at the an inquiry. If representations are submitted after the deadline they will not normally be seen by the Inspector and they will be returned to you.
A copy of the booklet, A guide to Taking Part in Planning Appeals is available on the Planning Inspectorate's web site www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk or you can obtain a copy from the County Council by contacting Jenny Caprio on telephone number 01296 383638. If you would like a copy of the appeal decision you should write to the Planning Inspectorate and ask for one to be sent to you.
Dated 9 July 2008