[2024] UKUT 0414 (LC)

Professor Robert May qualified as a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute in 1988 and has spent his career working in the field of town and country planning, initially for local planning authorities and then in private practice. He is a director of Ryan and May, a small planning consultancy established in 2020 with a UK wide practice. For the last 10 years he has specialised in providing expert evidence on amenity matters.

Professor May was instructed by the applicant to provide a summary of the planning history of the application site, and his expert opinion on the wide range of the matters raised in objection to the application. This included commenting on planning issues, concerning whether the redevelopment scheme was a reasonable user of land within the AONB, as well as assessment of the likely impact of the scheme on the objectors.

Whilst much was written in evidence for both parties about the nature of the redevelopment scheme, and its appropriateness within an area designated as an AONB, it was not in the end submitted on behalf of the objectors that the application should fail under ground (aa) because the scheme was not a reasonable use of the application site. Therefore, I will not spend time reviewing Professor May’s evidence on that subject, but will focus on his opinions on the practical impact on the objectors should the redevelopment scheme be permitted.

It was Professor May’s opinion that the benefit secured to the objectors by the restriction was limited to preventing the erection of non-agricultural buildings, and did not include control over appearance, nor factors arising from use such as noise, light, traffic and other disturbance. He observed that with business use now established under class E, without breach of the restriction, the existing buildings could be used as a creche or day nursery for children, which might be noisier and generate more traffic than the proposed office use.

Professor May pointed out that one of the conditions of the planning permission for the redevelopment was that a lighting scheme should be approved by the Council, and that had now happened. Exterior lighting on the buildings would be at a height greater than the eaves height of existing buildings, but would be sited under the roof overhang. However, the planning permission for the conversion scheme contained no condition requiring approval of a lighting scheme so, unless statutory nuisance could be established, the objectors would be in a position where there was no control over lighting and its effect. Professor May accepted that the redevelopment scheme would have full height windows to a greater eaves height than in the conversion scheme, and therefore a greater surface area of windows potentially causing light emission. However, the roof overhang and the intermittent vertical slatted screens were design features which would mitigate that. The glazing was to be non-reflective so there would be no effect from reflected sunlight. This was not a condition of the conversion scheme.

The rural location would be respected by the use of timber materials and a green roof in the building design, together with planting and landscaping of the outdoor areas adjacent to the field. When Professor May inspected the properties in July and August 2024 he observed the hedge and tree planting undertaken along the field boundary by the objectors. This prompted him to request further visualisations (like the one earlier in this decision) to show the screening effect of the objectors’ hedge and trees after periods of five years and 10 years. He had not appreciated that the trees were failing to become established.

In conclusion, it was Professor May’s opinion that should the redevelopment scheme be implemented there would be no impact on Drayton Holloway or the paddock, since they are too far away from the application site. Any impact on the field would be benign and no injury would result from it. The change in appearance of the application site would diminish over time, as landscaping matured. Any possible loss of privacy from overlooking must be considered in the light of the public footpath which already crosses the field. In conclusion, Professor May considered that the loss of amenity would be, at most, very marginal.