Planning appeal decision
Amberwood Cottage St. Catherines Hill Lane, Christchurch, BH23 2NL
Planning appeal 3270314 at Amberwood Cottage St. Catherines Hill Lane, Christchurch, BH23 2NL (Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole) was allowed on 10 November 2021 by Inspector Jones M, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether or not the annexe is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies.
The applicant was led to believe the proposed works fell under permitted development and has built the outbuilding around these constraints, however the LPA have advised that it doesn't and the application shouldn't have been granted in the first instance, therefore this is a retrospective application following the approval of the certificate of lawfulness REF - 8/16/2948/CLP
- Authority
- Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
- Appeal type
- householder · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Householder developments
- Inspector
- Jones M
- Postcode
- BH23 2NL
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether or not the annexe is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies
- the effect of the annexe on the character and appearance of the area, with reference to Amberwood Cottage and the settings of the Grade II listed buildings The Rest and The White House
- if there is harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is it clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, does this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the annexe
What decided it
The site history, particularly the Council's erroneous certification of lawfulness for a similarly sized building in 2017 and misleading advice about permitted development, was a decisive catalyst that weighed significantly in favour of the annexe and, combined with the personal circumstances of the elderly relatives, clearly outweighed the Green Belt harm to establish very special circumstances.
The harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and modest loss of openness was clearly outweighed by the personal circumstances of elderly dependent relatives requiring on-site care, the potential homelessness of the appellant's parents, and the Council's prior error in certifying lawfulness and providing misleading advice, establishing very special circumstances that justified the development despite conflict with the development plan.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy KS3Policy H14Policy HE1Policy HE2Policy H12
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 149
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 appliedThe 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.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2021
- Dismissed15 October 202660067416 Park Place, Poole, BH14 0LY
- Allowed28 September 20266007175281-291 and The Old Joinery, Bournemouth Road, Poole, BH14 9AH
- Allowed24 September 202660071875 Higher Blandford Road, Poole, BH18 9AB
- Allowed4 September 20266003539Marina Court, 34 Banks Road, Poole, BH13 7QE
- Dismissed3 September 2026600777931A The Avenue, Poole, BH13 6LJ
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.
®