Planning appeal decision
122 and 124 Hermitage Road, Saughall, CHESTER, CH1 6AG
without planning permission the erection of a single dwelling [“the unauthorised development”] shown as 124 Hermitage Road hatched on the attached plan
- Authority
- Cheshire West and Chester
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- residential · Householder developments
- Inspector
- Savage M
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the appeal scheme is inappropriate development in the green belt having regard to the revised framework and relevant development plan policies
- The effect of the appeal scheme on the openness of the Green Belt
- Whether the appeal site is a suitable location for a dwelling having regard to local and national planning policy
- The effect of the appeal scheme on the character and appearance of the area
- 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 appeal scheme
What decided it
The absence of very special circumstances clearly outweighing the harm from inappropriate development and modest harm to Green Belt openness determined the dismissal of the deemed planning application.
the other considerations relied upon (fallback permitted development rights, the unusual family living arrangement, and loss of home) did not clearly outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness and the modest harm to openness, so very special circumstances did not exist
Framework references: 149
Plan policies cited: Policy STRAT9, Policy DM19, Policy STRAT1, Policy DM21, Policy DM3, Policy ENV6
Judgments cited: Collins v SSE & Epping Forest DC [1989] EGCS 15; Sinclair-Lockhart's Trustees v Central Land Board (1950) 1 P&CR 195; Skerrits of Nottingham Ltd v SSETRis [2000] EWCA Civ 60, JPL 789; Challenge Fencing Limited v SSCLG & Elmbridge BC [2019] EWHC 553 (Admin); Dyer v Dorset CC [1988] 3 WLR 213; Methuen-Campbell v Walters [1979] 1 QB 525; HM Attorney-General ex rel Sutcliffe & Rouse & Hughes v Calderdale BC [1983] JPL 310; Burford v SSCLG & Test Valley BC [2017] EWHC 1493 (Admin); Blackbushe Airport Limited v R(aoa Hampshire CC), SSEFRA & Others [2021] EWCA Civ 938; James v SSE and Chichester DC [1991] JPL 550; O'Flynn v SSCLG & Warwick DC [2016] EWHC 2984 (Admin); R (oao Sumption) v Greenwich LBC [2007] EWCH 2276 (Admin)
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.
®