®Planning appeal decision
Woodside, Hackney Lane, Nesfield, Barlow, DRONFIELD, S18 7TB
described on the application form as ‘Redevelopment of large bungalow and outbuildings for five small bungalows and related infrastructure
- Authority
- North East Derbyshire District Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Coyne C
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies
- the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and its landscape
- if the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, 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 required to justify the proposal
What decided it
The substantial harm from inappropriate development and loss of openness in the Green Belt, combined with harm to character and appearance and the isolated location, was not clearly outweighed by the other considerations so as to amount to very special circumstances.
the substantial Green Belt harm by reason of inappropriateness, together with the harm to character and appearance and the isolated location, was not clearly outweighed by the other considerations (each given only limited weight), so very special circumstances did not exist and the balance tipped against the proposal
Framework references: 147, 149, 130, 174, 80, 105
Plan policies cited: Policy SS1, Policy SS2, Policy SS9, Policy SS10, Policy SDC3
Judgments cited: Sinclair-Lockhart's Trustees v Central Land Board [1950] 1 P&CR 195; Methuen-Campbell v Walters [1979] 1 QB 525; Burford v SSCLG & Test Valley BC [2017] EWHC 1493 (Admin); Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v SSETR (No. 1) [2000] EWCA Civ 60, [2001] JPL 1025; HM Attorney-General ex rel Sutcliffe & Rouse & Hughes v Calderdale BC [1983] JPL 310; Hampshire CC v SOSSER 2020 EWHC 159; Braintree District Council v SSCLG Greyread Ltd & Granville Developments Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 610
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.