®Planning appeal decision
Land at Lee Farm, 123 Botley Road, CHESHAM, Buckinghamshire, HP5 1XN
Without planning permission: - The erection of a building on the Land. The approximate location of the building as shown hatched on the plan (attached to the enforcement notice), with a thick black line around the perimeter of the Land (“the Unauthorised Development")
- Authority
- Buckinghamshire Council - Chiltern Area *
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Householder developments
- Inspector
- Boffin D
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of the building on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt
- Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, whether this amounts to the very special circumstances required to justify the development
What decided it
The other considerations relied on by the appellant, including the fallback positions and the Unilateral Undertaking, did not clearly outweigh the substantial and significant weight given to the Green Belt harm, so very special circumstances were not made out.
The substantial weight attached to limited harm to Green Belt openness and purposes, plus significant weight to conflict with Policy GB2, was not clearly outweighed by the other considerations (fallback positions, Unilateral Undertaking, design quality, personal circumstances of Mr Mason), which carried only appreciable or little weight, so very special circumstances did not exist and the balance tipped against the development.
Framework references: 138, 147, 148, 219
Plan policies cited: Policy GB2
Judgments cited: Carter v SSE [1994] 1 WLR 1212; Brightlingsea Haven Limited v Morris [2009] 2 P&CR 11; Cardiff Rating Authority v Guest Keen Baldwins Iron and Steel Co Ltd [1949] 1KB 385; Barvis v SSE [1971] 22 P&CR 710; Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v SSETR & Harrow LBC (No. 2) [2000] EWCA Civ 5569; [2000] JPL 1025; Dyer v Dorset CC [1988] 3 WLR 213; Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v SSETR (No. 1) [2000] EWCA Civ 60; [2000] JPL 789; Lowe v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 537 Admin; Challenge Fencing Ltd v SSHCLG & Elmbridge BC [2019] EWHC 553 (Admin); Burford v SSCLG & Test Valley BC [2017] EWHC 1493 (Admin); Sutcliffe v Calderdale BC [1983] JPL 310; R (oao Sumption) v Greenwich LBC [2007] EWHC 2276 (Admin); Turner v SSCLG & East Dorset Council [2016] EWCA Civ 466; R (on the application of Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) and others) (Respondents) v North Yorkshire County Council (Appellant) [2020] UKSC 3
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.