Free Planning Permission Refusal Appeal — TCPA 1990 s.78 (UK)

Notice of Appeal to the Planning Inspectorate — TCPA 1990 s.78

Statement Of Case  ·  15 June 2026  ·  6 MONTHS Deadline

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write on behalf of Marston Estate Trustees Limited to lodge a Notice of Appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the refusal of planning permission by Hambleton District Council (LPA reference 24/00872/FUL) by decision notice dated 22 April 2026. The application is a MAJOR application (development of 10 or more dwellings, 0.5 hectares or more, 1,000m² floorspace or more, or other major development per Article 2(1) TCPDMPO 2015); the applicable appeal deadline under Article 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 SI 595 is 6 MONTHS from the date of the decision notice — the prescribed deadline is 22 October 2026. This appeal is lodged by the original applicant (who alone has standing under TCPA 1990 s.78). The preferred procedure is Hearing. This letter accompanies the online appeal submission via appeals.planninginspectorate.gov.uk and constitutes the appellant's STATEMENT OF CASE.

Appellant: Marston Estate Trustees Limited
Address: Marston Manor, Marston-on-the-Hill, North Yorkshire YO61 4SP
Telephone: 01904 612498
Email: trustees@marstonestate.co.uk
Capacity: Original applicant — TCPA 1990 s.78 standing confirmed
Planning agent: Lansdowne Planning Consultants Ltd of Mill House, 8 Wesley Street, York YO10 5AE

LPA: Hambleton District Council
LPA address: Civic Centre, Stone Cross, Northallerton DL6 2UU
Application reference: 24/00872/FUL
Property address: Land at Marston Manor East Field, Marston-on-the-Hill, North Yorkshire YO61 4SP
Application description: Erection of 24 dwellings (mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom houses), with associated open space, access, parking and landscaping
Application category: a MAJOR application (development of 10 or more dwellings, 0.5 hectares or more, 1,000m² floorspace or more, or other major development per Article 2(1) TCPDMPO 2015)
Decision date: 22 April 2026
Appeal deadline: 22 October 2026 (6 MONTHS from decision notice — TCPDMPO 2015 SI 595 Art 37(2))

The LPA refused the application by decision notice dated 22 April 2026. The reasons given are as follows (quoted from the decision notice):

1. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable visual impact on the open countryside surrounding the village of Marston-on-the-Hill, contrary to Policy DM1 of the Hambleton Local Plan 2014-2035 and paragraphs 174-180 of the NPPF (2024).

2. The proposed access onto Marston Lane would be unsafe due to limited visibility splays falling below the standards in Manual for Streets, contrary to Policy DM10 (Transport) of the Local Plan.

3. The proposed development would fail to provide an acceptable level of affordable housing (only 20% rather than the policy 30%), contrary to Policy DM5 of the Local Plan.

The appellant respectfully disagrees with each of the three refusal reasons. (1) The visual impact assessment by Roper Coppice Landscape Consultants (enclosed) demonstrates that the proposed development integrates with the existing settlement edge and accords with Policy DM1; the LPA officer report recommended approval before being overruled at committee. (2) Visibility splays of 2.4m x 90m are achievable and have been confirmed by North Yorkshire Highways as compliant with Manual for Streets — the LPA Highways officer raised no objection. (3) The 20% affordable housing reflects a viability assessment by Pinder Cromwell, which the LPA viability consultant accepted in pre-application discussions; the 30% threshold is not absolute where viability is impaired.

The appellant requests that the appeal proceeds by way of HEARING — structured discussion before an Inspector (no formal witnesses, no cross-examination); typical timetable 6-9 months. The appellant acknowledges that PINS determines the procedure based on case complexity and that the procedure ultimately followed may differ from the preference indicated.

(A) GENERAL DEADLINES. Article 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 SI 595 prescribes the appeal deadlines:
   (i) 12 WEEKS — householder applications and minor commercial applications;
   (ii) 6 MONTHS — major applications and all other (including listed building consent);
   (iii) 28 DAYS — Type A appeals (where enforcement notice served 2+ years before the appeal) and Type B appeals (enforcement notice served shortly before the standard deadline expires).

(B) APPLICATION TO THIS APPEAL. This application is categorised as a MAJOR application (development of 10 or more dwellings, 0.5 hectares or more, 1,000m² floorspace or more, or other major development per Article 2(1) TCPDMPO 2015). The applicable deadline is therefore 6 MONTHS from the date of the LPA decision notice (22 April 2026). The prescribed deadline is 22 October 2026.

(C) PINS PROCEDURAL GUIDE 2026. The Planning Inspectorate Procedural Guide for Planning Appeals (England) sets out the procedural framework. There are two current versions: one for appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026, and one for appeals dated on or after 1 April 2026 (incorporating expedited reforms). This appeal relates to an application dated on or before 31 March 2026 — the STANDARD version of the Procedural Guide applies.

(D) NON-DETERMINATION. Where the LPA fails to determine the application within the statutory determination period (8 weeks householder / 13 weeks minor commercial / 16 weeks major / 21 weeks EIA), the applicant may appeal on the basis of NON-DETERMINATION — the deadline runs from the expiry of the determination period, not from any later decision.

(E) NO EXTENSION. The deadlines under Article 37(2) are strict. There is no general power for PINS to extend; a late appeal is invalid and will be rejected (subject to the very limited PINS discretion in exceptional circumstances).

Deadline narrative:
This is a major application (24 dwellings — exceeds the 10-dwelling threshold under TCPDMPO 2015 SI 595 Art 2(1)). The 6-month deadline therefore applies. The LPA decision is dated 22 April 2026; the prescribed appeal deadline is 22 October 2026. This appeal is lodged on 15 June 2026, well within the deadline. The application was made pre-1 April 2026 so the PINS Procedural Guide for appeals dated on or before 31 March 2026 governs (not the post-1-April-2026 expedited reforms version).

The appellant addresses each refusal reason in turn, with reference to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the relevant Local Plan policies and the case-law on material considerations (Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State [1995] 1 WLR 759; South Bucks DC v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33 — adequate reasons; R (Newsmith Stainless Ltd) v Secretary of State [2017] EWCA Civ 1057 — Inspector duty to give clear reasons).

(A) DESIGN — NPPF Chapter 12 (well-designed places).
The LPA cites Policy DM1 (open countryside protection) and NPPF paragraphs 174-180. The appellant relies on the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) by Roper Coppice Landscape Consultants (dated 14 March 2026, enclosed). The LVIA concludes: (a) the site lies adjacent to the existing settlement edge — not in open countryside; (b) the development is screened by existing mature hedgerow to the east and south; (c) the proposed northern boundary planting will mature within 5 years to provide screening from the open countryside view to the north. The Hambleton LPA officer report recommended APPROVAL on this point; the committee overruled the officer recommendation without identifying any specific LVIA finding it disagreed with — a Newsmith Stainless [2017] EWCA Civ 1057 inadequacy.

(C) HIGHWAYS — traffic / parking / access.
The LPA cites Policy DM10 (transport) and Manual for Streets visibility splay shortfall. The appellant relies on the Transport Statement by Vector Highways Consultancy (dated 14 March 2026, enclosed): visibility splays of 2.4m x 90m are achievable with minor verge cutting (programme included in the construction package). North Yorkshire Highways was consulted by the LPA and raised NO OBJECTION (consultation response dated 12 February 2026, enclosed). The committee's contrary view on highways safety departs from its own statutory consultee without sound reason.

(H) OTHER REFUSAL REASONS.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING (Policy DM5 / 30% threshold). The Pinder Cromwell viability assessment (dated 14 March 2026, enclosed) demonstrates that 30% affordable housing renders the scheme financially unviable on current sale value assumptions for the Marston-on-the-Hill location; 20% maintains viability while delivering material affordable housing benefit. The LPA viability consultant ACCEPTED this analysis in pre-application discussions (correspondence enclosed). The committee's subsequent rejection of the 20% level departs from the conclusion of its own consultant — a Newsmith inadequacy.

Overall rebuttal narrative:
The committee overruled the officer recommendation on all three grounds without articulating clear reasons that engage with the evidence base. Per South Bucks DC v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33, adequate reasons must enable the appellant to know why it lost. The committee minute records only summary reference to the policies cited, without engaging the LVIA, Transport Statement or viability assessment. Per Tesco Stores v SS [1995] 1 WLR 759 — failure to take material considerations into account is a ground for a successful appeal.

(A) THREE PROCEDURES. The Planning Inspectorate Procedural Guide identifies three procedures:
   (i) Written Representations — no oral hearing; statement of case + LPA statement + responses + (optional) site visit by Inspector; typical timetable 4-6 months; suitable for straightforward householder and minor commercial appeals.
   (ii) Hearing — structured discussion before an Inspector; no witnesses / no cross-examination; typical timetable 6-9 months; suitable where the case turns on the Inspector's judgment of competing material considerations.
   (iii) Inquiry — formal proceedings with witnesses, expert evidence, cross-examination and opening / closing submissions; typical timetable 9-18 months or longer; reserved for complex / major schemes with disputed expert evidence.

(B) APPELLANT'S PREFERENCE. HEARING — structured discussion before an Inspector (no formal witnesses, no cross-examination); typical timetable 6-9 months

(C) EXPERT EVIDENCE PLANNED. The appellant intends to rely on a PLANNING CONSULTANT supported by a LANDSCAPE architect (LVIA author) — appropriate where landscape / AONB / Green Belt openness is a material refusal reason.

(D) PINS DISCRETION. The Planning Inspectorate determines the procedure based on case complexity per the Procedural Guide. The appellant's preference is taken into account but is not binding; PINS may direct a different procedure if the case warrants.

(E) COST-BENEFIT. Written Representations is the least costly procedure (no oral hearing fees; faster timetable). Inquiries involve significant expert witness costs (planning consultant + highways + heritage / landscape / flooding experts as relevant) but provide the strongest evidential platform for complex cases. The appellant has weighed the cost-benefit and selected its preferred procedure accordingly.

Procedure narrative:
The appellant has elected HEARING procedure. The case turns on the Inspector's judgment of competing material considerations (LVIA conclusions; visibility splay achievability; viability) — well-suited to structured discussion. Inquiry is not required (no live witness cross-examination needed; expert reports are produced and accepted at face value). Written Representations would be acceptable but the hearing format allows the Inspector to test the appellant's expert conclusions against the LPA's committee reasoning in a way that paper submissions do not. Hearing timetable (6-9 months) is acceptable. Hearing cost (planning consultant attendance + 1 day Inspector + LPA team) estimated at GBP 18,000 — proportionate to the development value of GBP 6.5m.

(A) APPLICATION FOR COSTS. The appellant applies for an award of costs against the LPA under the Planning Inspectorate Costs Award Guidance. The application is made on form PCN1 and is being lodged contemporaneously with this Notice of Appeal.

(B) BASIS OF APPLICATION. The appellant contends that the LPA refused the application without a sound and clear reason — no reasoned policy basis, only vague subjective objection.

(C) TEST. The test for an award of costs is whether the LPA has behaved UNREASONABLY in such a way as to cause the appellant to incur unnecessary or wasted expense. The Costs Award Guidance lists examples including: refusal without sound and clear reasons; introducing late evidence; ignoring pre-application discussion outcomes; repeated refusal of materially similar applications without identifying new objections.

(D) EVIDENCE. The appellant relies on the LPA's decision notice, the pre-application correspondence, the officer report (if available) and the chronology of the application process. The appellant invites PINS to consider whether a reasonable LPA, properly directing itself, would have refused the application on the reasons stated.

(E) QUANTUM. If costs are awarded, the appellant will provide a detailed schedule of professional fees (planning consultant; legal; expert witnesses if any) for the Inspector's consideration in a subsequent costs hearing.

Costs narrative:
The appellant's costs application focuses on the committee's departure from its officer report. The officer recommended approval on all three grounds, having considered the LVIA, Transport Statement and viability assessment. The committee minute does not engage with this evidence — it cites the policies but does not articulate where in the evidence base the policies are breached. The PINS Costs Award Guidance lists this as a typical example of unreasonable behaviour (refusal without sound and clear reasons). The appellant's anticipated wasted expense (appeal preparation; expert witness updates; hearing attendance; legal fees) is estimated at GBP 35,000 — to be substantiated by detailed schedule if costs are awarded.

Pursuant to the PINS Procedural Guide, the appellant encloses:

   (a) a copy of the LPA decision notice dated 22 April 2026;
   (b) a copy of the planning application as submitted to the LPA (form + plans + supporting statements);
   (c) this statement of case;
   (d) site location plan (1:1250 or 1:2500) with red-line edge to the application site;
   (e) any expert reports relied on (design / heritage / highways / flooding / heritage statement as relevant);
   (f) (if costs sought) form PCN1.

These documents are uploaded to the online appeal submission portal at appeals.planninginspectorate.gov.uk.

YOURS FAITHFULLY,