Former BT Station, Land on the north east side of Fletchamstead Highway, Canley, CV4 7BB

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

• Appeal A: Whether or not the proposal represents acceptable development in a flood risk sense, having particular regard to any implications of the site's flood zone location and the current absence of a detailed drainage strategy
• Appeal A: Whether or not it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that acceptable living conditions would prevail for future occupiers, having particular regard to noise
• Appeal A: The effect of the proposal upon highway safety
• Appeal A: Whether or not it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that acceptable living conditions would prevail for future occupiers, having particular regard to access to light
• Appeal A: Whether or not it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal would have an acceptable effect upon existing trees and biodiversity
• Appeal B: Whether or not flooding risks would make the appeal property unsuitable for residential use
• Appeal B: Whether or not noise impacts from commercial premises would make the appeal property unsuitable for residential use
• Appeal B: Whether or not the transport impacts of the development would make the appeal property unsuitable for residential use, having particular regard to whether or not safe site access would prevail

What decided it

Appeal A was decided by cumulative harms in flood risk, noise and highway safety outweighing the housing supply benefits, with flood risk policy conflict disengaging the presumption in favour of sustainable development; Appeal B was decided by the Inspector's conclusion that none of the three matters assessable under GPDO Class MA (flood risk, noise from commercial premises, transport impacts) would make the property unsuitable for residential use.

Appeal A: the significant weight attributed to housing delivery benefits, given a substantial housing land supply shortfall, did not outweigh the identified harms in flood risk, noise and highway safety, and conflict with flood risk policy meant the tilted balance was not engaged; Appeal B: no planning balance was required as it concerned a GPDO prior approval application, and it was allowed once each assessable matter was resolved in the proposal's favour.