# Primrose Farm, Bradcutts Lane, Cookham Dean

- **Decision:** allowed, 7 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Brennan
- **Authority:** Windsor and Maidenhead (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008689
- **Application reference:** 26/00116/OUT
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Appeal against personal-occupancy, cessation and restoration conditions (4-6) on outline permission for a dwelling replacing part of a landscape contractor's workshop
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** green-belt, PDL
- **Green Belt:** yes
- **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited
- **Determinative policies:** DM6
- **Development plan policies:** RBWM Borough Local Plan 2013-2033 QP3, EP1
- **Main issues:** necessity/reasonableness of occupancy, cessation and restoration conditions
- **Tags:** tier-2, no-framework-reference, occupancy-condition, conditions-appeal, costs-application

## Summary
A personal occupancy condition, and conditions requiring the dwelling to be demolished and the land restored when the appellant leaves, were replaced by a single condition tying occupation to employment in the on-site landscaping business. The replacement condition is enough to protect future occupiers from yard noise (DL ¶12-17).

## What made the difference
The planning concern was the relationship between the house and the business, not the person occupying it. The Framework is not cited at all. The conditions tests were applied without any policy reference.

## Policy findings
- **DM6: pass.** code mapped by harvester — personal condition replaced by business-tied occupancy condition; demolition/restoration conditions "overzealous and unreasonable" and unnecessary (DL 12-17)
- **P3: neutral.** code mapped by harvester — yard noise 13-18dB above background; low effect if occupier linked to business (DL 10-12)

## Key facts
- Dwelling had been accepted as not inappropriate in the Green Belt at application stage (DL 16)
- Tie limited to the existing landscape contractor use so that a different operation would need a fresh noise assessment (DL 13)
- The letter does not refer to the Framework in any version

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008689
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8ac4421e-f33a-425b-ae2c-b00d5542981a

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008689.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.