®Planning appeal decision
Haybarn, Dye House Road,, Thursley, Godalming, Surrey, GU8 6QN
erection of a dwelling to provide grooms’ accommodation in connection with existing commercial equestrian yard
- Authority
- Waverley Borough Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Kean G
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the development is inappropriate development within the GB, including its effect on the openness and purposes of the GB
- the effect of the development on: the character and appearance of the area, the adjacent ancient woodland, and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers
- whether the development amounted to intentional unauthorised development within the meaning of the 31 August 2015 planning policy statement and if so what are the relevant factors to inform the weight to be attached to this consideration
- if inappropriate development, whether the 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 found no essential need for a new on-site dwelling and that the harm from inappropriate Green Belt development, including loss of openness, was not clearly outweighed by the other considerations advanced, so very special circumstances were not established.
Substantial weight to harm from inappropriate development and loss of openness/conflict with Green Belt purposes, together with further harm to character and appearance, ancient woodland and neighbours' living conditions, and significant weight to intentional unauthorised development, were not clearly outweighed by the moderate weight (at best) given to the very special circumstances advanced by the appellant.
Framework references: 147, 148, 149, 172, 175, 79
Plan policies cited: Policy RE2, Policy TD1, Policy D1, Policy D4, Policy D7, Policy NE1, Policy RD14, Policy SP1, Policy ST1
Judgments cited: Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another (1984) 47 P. & C.R. 142; Uttlesford DC v Secretary of State for the Environment and White [1992] J.P.L. 171; Wealden DC v SSE & Day [1988] JPL 268; Hancock v SSE & Torridge DC, Tyack v SSE & Cotswolds DC [1989] 1 WLR 1392; [1989] JPL 99; Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13; Bromley LBC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWHC 595 (Admin); Europa Oil and Gas Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Surrey County Council, Leath Hill Action Group [2013] EWHC 2643 (Admin); Europa Oil and Gas Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Surrey County Council, Leith Hill Action Group [2014] EWCA Civ 825; Alison Hook v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Surrey Heath Borough Council [2020] EWCA Civ 486; Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] 2 P&CR 1; Fordent Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 2844 (Admin); Wychavon DC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] EWCA Civ 692; R. (on the application of Khan) v Sutton LBC [2014] EWHC 3663 (Admin)
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.