- Decision
- dismissed, 28 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Richard Snow
- Authority
- Melton (East Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6012885
- Application reference
- 24/00722/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Retention until July 2029 of a large PVC marquee in a pub paddock for up to 20 events a year
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(4), P3, TR6(4), S4
- Development plan policies
- Melton Local Plan D1, EN1, EN6, EN13, IN2
- Main issues
- character and appearance including heritage; noise and disturbance; highway safety
Summary
Temporary retention of a large white PVC events marquee in a pub paddock in the Branston Conservation Area. Dismissed on three grounds: harm to the conservation area not outweighed by unevidenced viability benefits; noise from events near homes; and parking overspill onto narrow village streets (TR6). The S4 balance failed.
Issues and findings
- Heritage. "Taking account of the temporary nature of the proposal, the harm to the CA would be at a low level, but for the reasons outlined above, harm caused to a CA and its significance should be afforded substantial weight" (DL ¶13). The letter had just stated HE6(3) correctly: "any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶13).
- Viability. "there is no substantive evidence before me, such as viability or financial information, demonstrating that the business would face significant financial difficulty or closure without the marquee" (DL ¶15).
- Noise. "the use would give rise to significant noise and disturbance, particularly during hours when residents would reasonably expect quiet enjoyment of their homes" (DL ¶20).
- Highways. "the proposal is likely to result in unacceptable harm to highway safety caused by the overspill of attendee’s cars onto the public highway" (DL ¶25).
- Fallback. Harm "would be continuous for the period up to July 2029 and therefore differs materially to the impact associated with the sporadic and temporary use of land for 28 days per year" (DL ¶27).
Planning balance
S4. HE6 failed (DL ¶32), P3 (DL ¶33) and TR6 "should be refused" (DL ¶34). "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶35).
Transferable points
- A temporary permission reduces the level of heritage harm but does not remove it (DL ¶12-13).
- Business-viability benefits need financial evidence (DL ¶15).
- The 28-day temporary-use permitted development right is not a like-for-like fallback for a structure retained for years (DL ¶27).
- Overspill parking on land outside the appellant's control, and not secured, carries limited weight (DL ¶23).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE6(3) | harm | substantial | harm to the Branston CA "at a low level" because temporary, but the letter says harm to a CA "should be afforded substantial weight" (not the HE6(3) wording it quoted just before) and later calls it "significant harm" (DL 7-13, 32) |
| HE6(4) | fail | pub viability unevidenced (limited weight); economy and tourism low to moderate weight (DL 14-15) | |
| P3 | harm | up to 125 guests, amplified music until midnight, homes close by; no noise assessment; limits unenforceable (DL 16-21, 33) | |
| TR6(4) | fail | parking demand beyond about 30 spaces; overspill field leased from a third party and unsecured; obstruction of narrow Main Street (DL 22-25, 34) | |
| Transitional(2) | accord | significant | D1, IN2, EN1, EN6, EN13 consistent with the Framework; conflict given significant weight (DL 30) |
| S4 | fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31, 35) |
Key facts
- Marquee already in situ; temporary retention to July 2029; up to 20 events a year, 12 with live music, some until midnight (DL 4, 9, 16)
- [object Object]
- Grade II* Church of St Guthlac's setting preserved (DL 26)
- No evidence on public transport; attendees likely to arrive by car (DL 22)
- Costs application decided separately (DL 2)
- Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 5)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.