Land Opposite 2 Goldsmith Drive, Rayleigh, Essex, SS6 9QX

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

• The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt and whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development, on either a permanent or temporary basis (Appeals B and C).
• Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised Framework and any relevant development plan policies; the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations amounting to very special circumstances (Appeal A).

What decided it

In Appeals B and C the cumulative weight of the need for and lack of supply of gypsy and traveller sites, the absence of any alternative accommodation, and the best interests of the children clearly outweighed the Green Belt harm, whereas in Appeal A the absence of any comparable other considerations meant the Green Belt harm was not outweighed.

In Appeals B and C the substantial/significant harm to Green Belt openness, combined with limited weight against intentional unauthorised development, was clearly outweighed by the cumulative significant weight of other considerations, amounting to very special circumstances justifying the grant of permission; in Appeal A, with no such other considerations applicable and significant weight attached to intentional unauthorised development, the harm was not clearly outweighed and very special circumstances did not exist.