The site lay within an emergency planning zone surrounding the atomic weapons establishment, where local plan policy stated that only development able to be accommodated by a nuclear emergency plan was permissible, taking into account views of consultees. The office for nuclear regulation and the district Joint Emergency Planning Manager had both advised against the scheme in response to consultation . The appellant sought to claim that this denoted a lower level of concern than a recommendation to refuse but the inspector noted office for nuclear regulation consultation advice referred to the terms ‘advises against’ or ‘does not advise against’, and stated her understanding that the term expressed a view that the appeal proposal should not proceed.
On other issues, the inspector considered the extension to be a bulky and incongruous addition in the street scene, which would also unacceptably reduce light, privacy and outlook for neighbours. Applying the tilted balance to her decision given a housing supply shortfall, she went on to dismiss the appeal.
Inspector: Helen O’Connor; Written representations