Core Planning Reasoning
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the development would not interfere with a 300mm foul sewer crossing the site and provided inadequate documentation that did not accurately reflect the extent of works to be retained or existing site conditions.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The development could be prejudicial to public health as the applicant failed to prove that the structure does not negatively impact a significant foul sewer crossing the rear of the site.
- The proposal fails to comply with Policy Objective EI6 of the County Development Plan, as it provides insufficient information regarding Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS).
- The application documentation contains significant discrepancies between the submitted plans and the actual physical works on-site, making it inappropriate to grant permission for the development as described.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Section 12.3.7.4Policy Objective EI6Section 10.2.2.6Objective A
Decision Document Summary
This application sought the retention and completion of a 45sqm ancillary structure (comprising a garden shed, storage, and home office) at No. 56 Landscape Park, Churchtown. The proposal follows a previous refusal by the Board (ABP-3138896-22) for a similar but larger 79sqm structure on the same footprint. While the Planning Authority initially granted permission, the Inspector recommended refusal following a third-party appeal. The Inspector noted that the applicant failed to overcome previous...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.
PDF Document Missing
The original decision document for this case could not be linked. This often happens for older cases or those with restricted documentation.
Search for case on ABP