®Planning appeal decision
Land at Greys Meadow Studio, Rotherfield Greys, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, RG9 4QJ
Erection of art studio, with details of access, car parking and landscaping (Retrospective)
- Authority
- South Oxfordshire District Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- other · Other minor developments
- Inspector
- Moss J
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether or not the location of the development is/would be acceptable, having regard to relevant planning policy and guidance on the location of such development
- The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area, with particular regard to the site's location within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
- Whether or not the development is/would be acceptable, having regard to relevant planning policy and guidance on energy efficiency, sustainability of design and carbon reduction
- The effect of the development on highway safety, having regard to parking and access to the site
What decided it
The unsustainable location of the development and its harm to the character, appearance and scenic beauty of the Chilterns AONB, combined with harm to highway safety from inadequate visibility at the access, outweighed the limited weight attributable to the fallback permissions and other benefits.
The limited/minimal weight given to the extant P17 and P16 fallback permissions and other modest benefits did not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the site and the AONB, the unacceptable location, and the harm to highway safety from the inadequate access, so the development conflicted with the development plan and permission was refused.
Framework references: 176
Plan policies cited: Policy STRAT1, Policy TRANS5, Policy ENV1, Policy DES1, Policy DES2, Policy DES7, Policy DES8, Policy DES10
Judgments cited: Oates v SSCLG v Canterbury CC [2018] EWCA Civ 2229; Miller-Mead v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1963] 2 Q.B. 196; Koumis v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] J.P.L. 682; R v Rochester-upon-Medway CC ex parte Hobday [1990] JPL 17; [1990] JPL 923; Sarodia v Redbridge LBC [2017] EWHC 2347; Salisbury District Council v SoS [1982] J.P.L. 702; Commercial Land Ltd/Imperial Resources SA v SoS TLGR [2003] J.P.L. 358 (Admin); [2003] JPL 358; Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWCA Civ 333; R (Kverndal) v LB Hounslow [2015] EWHC 3084 (Admin); Gambone v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 952 (Admin); Mansell v. Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314
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.