Haybarn, Dye House Road,, Thursley, Godalming, Surrey, GU8 6QN

Planning appeal 3236157 at Haybarn, Dye House Road,, Thursley, Godalming, Surrey, GU8 6QN (Waverley Borough Council) was dismissed on 1 October 2021 by Inspector Kean G, following a hearing. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the development is inappropriate development within the GB, including its effect on the openness and purposes of the GB.

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
Postcode: GU8 6QN

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.

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies: Policy RE2Policy TD1Policy D1Policy D4Policy D7Policy NE1Policy RD14Policy SP1Policy ST1
National Planning Policy Framework: Paragraph 147Paragraph 148Paragraph 149Paragraph 172Paragraph 175Paragraph 79
Judgments: 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)

How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.

See how each was applied

The decision letter

Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.

Appeals plan, £15 a month

With an account

What an account adds to this decision

12 other decided appeals within two kilometres of this site. In the app every dot opens its decision, and its letter wherever one was published, and you can draw your own site to see what has been decided around it.AllowedDismissedSplitThis decision

An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter — Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.

Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app — Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.

Start your free trial

More decisions in Waverley Borough Council

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2021

Dismissed22 October 20266013698
Markwick Farmhouse, Markwick Lane, Godalming, GU8 4BE
Dismissed5 October 20266012552
Dene End, Sands Lane, Tilford Nr Farnham, GU10 2BA
Dismissed5 October 20266011947
Land off Station Road, Hydestile, Godalming, GU8 4DB
Dismissed5 October 20266009555
Combe Farm, Alldens Lane, Godalming, GU8 4AP
Dismissed22 July 20266008792
Mossy Copse, Smithwood Common Rd, Cranleigh, GU6 8QR

The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.