DC Casebook: Retail Development - Canopy opposition leads to costs payout

Planning, 16 May 2008

The garden centre formed part of a shopping village hosting a range of retail uses and buildings. The appellants claimed that the canopy was necessary to protect plants from strong winds, frost and sunlight. The council, while agreeing that some form of covering was needed, maintained that the canopy's height, rounded form and colour harmed the area's character and appearance. Its preference was for a more traditional form, reflecting the pitched roofs of adjoining greenhouses.

The inspector found no policy justification for preferring any particular type of canopy. The structure would not be visible from a nearby road and involved just over one per cent of a shopping complex containing a wide variety of buildings with roofs of varying heights, pitches, materials and colours, he noted. He decided that the council's failure to support its reasons for rejecting the scheme against officers' advice justified a full award of costs to the appellant.

DCS Number 100-054-658

Inspector Mansell Jagger; Hearing.