Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed28 April 20223248170

Land Adj to Long Leys Barn, Fanshaws Lane, Brickendon, HERTFORD, SG13 8PG

‘Site to contain one static caravan, with parking for two vehicles and associated infrastructure (retrospective)’. Summary

Authority
East Hertfordshire District Council
Appeal type
minor · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Hearing
Development
caravan-gypsy · Change of use
Inspector
Renaudon L

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • Gypsy or Traveller status
  • Whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt (GB), to include consideration of the effects on openness and purposes of the GB
  • Any other asserted harm/policy conflicts under HOU9 criteria: character and appearance of the Brickendon Conservation Area; locational sustainability (a); effect on highway safety and essential services (b); storage and utility services (c); size/location/scale (d); character of the area (g)
  • Whether harm to GB and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to very special circumstances (need for and supply of sites; availability of alternative sites; personal circumstances and human rights including best interests of children)
  • The effects of the proposal on the listed building (Fanshaws) as well as on other designated or non-designated heritage assets
  • Whether the time stipulated for compliance with the enforcement notice's requirements falls short of what should reasonably be allowed

What decided it

The cumulative Green Belt and heritage harm was not clearly outweighed by the benefits relied upon, so very special circumstances did not exist to justify permission.

the harm to the Green Belt (substantial weight) and to designated heritage assets (great weight), together with other identified policy conflicts, was not clearly outweighed by the considerable weight given to gypsy/traveller accommodation need, moderate weight to personal/health circumstances, significant weight to the children's best interests, and limited weight to the lack of alternative sites, so very special circumstances did not exist and the appeals were dismissed

Framework references: 149, 150

Plan policies cited: GBR1, HA1, HA2, HA7, HOU9, HOU10, TRA1, DPS2, DES2, DES3, DES4, HA4

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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.