Billingsbourne Barn, Millers Lane, Chigwell Row, IG7 6FG

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

• whether the Council's decision to refuse the LDC application was well-founded or not, ie the section 195 appeal
• whether the matters stated in the notice (if they occurred) constitute a breach of planning control, ie the section 174 ground (c) appeal
• if the above ground of appeal is not successful, whether planning permission ought to be granted for the breach of planning control alleged in the notice, ie the section 174 ground (a) appeal
• if the above ground of appeal is not successful, whether the steps required by the notice to be taken, or the activities required by the notice to cease, exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning control which may be constituted by the matters stated in the notice or, as the case may be, to remedy any injury to amenity which has been caused by any such breach, ie the section 174 ground (f) appeal
• whether the period for compliance with the notice falls short of what should reasonably be allowed, ie the section 174 ground (g) appeal
• whether the appeal development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies
• the effect of the appeal development on the character and appearance of the area
• if the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development

What decided it

The Inspector's finding that the built structure was, in practical terms, a fresh build rather than a conversion of the agricultural barn, taking it outside permitted development rights and meaning the Green Belt designation provided a clear reason to refuse the deemed planning permission.

The limited weight given to the housing benefit, the similarity of the structure's above-ground dimensions to the former barn, and the appellant's personal circumstances did not clearly outweigh the substantial harm from inappropriate development and loss of openness in the Green Belt, so very special circumstances were not made out.