The site already contained one dwelling that had been permitted following the completion of a planning agreement that restricted its occupation to an owner or manager of the haulage business. The appellant explained that his father wished to retire from the business but planned to continue living in the house. He needed another dwelling to live in himself, he asserted.
The inspector found no functional need for two homes on the appeal site, given that the existing property met the needs of the business. An additional dwelling could not be justified on the basis of the father's retirement needs, she decided. This amounted to a personal circumstances claim that could not outweigh the policy conflict, she held.
Inspector: Louise Crosby; Hearing.