Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed25 February 20266000778

Bugle Inn, 56 High Street, Brading, Sandown, PO36 0DQ

proposed nine residential dwellings (Use Class C3) on land to the rear of The Bugle Inn, utilising existing access off High Street, with associated parking and landscaping, and extension/reconfiguration of the public house car park

Authority
Isle of Wight Council
Appeal type
minor · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
residential · Minor Dwellings
Inspector
Nicholls H

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Brading Conservation Area (BCA)
  • whether the housing mix would adequately address local housing need
  • the effects of the appeal scheme on any archaeological features
  • the effects of the appeal scheme on trees
  • whether the appeal scheme would adequately address flood risks and provide adequate drainage infrastructure
  • the effects on the adjacent Public Right of Way (PROW)
  • the effects on the Solent Special Protection Area (SPA)
  • whether the appeal scheme would contribute towards the provision of affordable housing
  • whether the scheme would provide adequate Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)

What decided it

The lack of clear and robust evidence that the development would not result in an increased risk of flooding elsewhere, combined with the failure to pass the exception test under the Framework's flood risk policies, provided a strong reason for refusal that engaged specific Framework protections and displaced the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The benefits of delivering nine dwellings in a sustainable location with affordable housing contribution and biodiversity net gain were outweighed by the cumulative harms: less than substantial harm to the conservation area, failure to address housing need through appropriate mix, unresolved archaeological concerns, harm to a protected tree, and critically, unresolved flood risk and drainage concerns that failed the exception test.

Framework references: 11, 207, 215

Plan policies cited: Policy DM2, Policy DM11, Policy DM3, Policy DM12, Policy DM14, Policy SP5, Policy SP7, Policy DM17, Policy DM4, Brading Neighbourhood Plan policy HD1, Brading Neighbourhood Plan policy HD2

Judgments cited: Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [1982]; Holborn Studios Ltd v CLBH [2017] EWHC 2823

The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.