The Planning Authority in this case had refused planning permission for the proposed redevelopment of a former poultry processing plant located in the grounds of a Grade I listed property to provide up to 120 new dwellings, employment floorspace and a community building. The Council considered that due to the remote and isolated location of the site, the appeal proposal amounted to unsustainable development that would be heavily car dependent. One of the main issues identified by the Inspector was whether it would provide acceptable access to services and facilities.
Working closely with the Appellant’s transport planning witness, Rupert Lyons was able to narrow the issues but there remained a fundamental difference of opinion regarding the accessibility of the site by sustainable travel modes.
His evidence to the public inquiry explained that the Planning Authority’s fourth reason for refusal was well founded, that the site was not an appropriate location for the proposed development having regard to the development plan and national land use and transport planning policies, that the appeal proposal did not provide an acceptable level of access to the services and facilities that residents would require to meet their day-to-day needs or a genuine choice of transport modes. He concluded that there were no meaningful opportunities for the promotion of sustainable travel that could be taken up.
On the basis of the evidence before him and heard at the inquiry, the Inspector concluded that “the development would not provide acceptable access to services and facilities”. He dismissed the appeal on 25 March 2021.