Town Planner Pro
Free trial
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed18 August 20213272503

Land Rear of 132, Main Road, Underwood, Nottingham, Notts, NG16 5GN

Planning appeal 3272503 at Land Rear of 132, Main Road, Underwood, Nottingham, Notts, NG16 5GN (Ashfield District Council) was dismissed on 18 August 2021 by Inspector Taylor K, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies.

One dwelling (single storey bungalow with rooms within the roof space)

Authority
Ashfield District Council
Appeal type
minor · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
residential · Minor Dwellings
Inspector
Taylor K
Postcode
NG16 5GN

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies
  • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt
  • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area
  • The safe and efficient operation of the highway network in the vicinity of the appeal site
  • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of future neighbouring occupiers, with regard to privacy
  • If the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal

What decided it

The significant harm to character and appearance, living conditions of future neighbouring occupiers, and highway safety concerns, when weighed against the limited benefits of one additional dwelling, demonstrably outweighed the benefits even under the tilted balance.

The benefits of housing delivery and the shortfall in five-year housing land supply were outweighed by the significant harm to character and appearance, living conditions of future neighbouring occupiers, and highway safety concerns, such that the presumption in favour of sustainable development did not apply.

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies
Saved Policy EV1 of the Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002Saved Policy HG5(g) of the Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002Saved Policy ST1(b) of the Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002Saved Policy HG5(e) of the Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002Saved Policy HG5(a) of the Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002Saved Policy HG5(b) of the Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002Policy NP2 of the Jacksdale, Underwood and Selston Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 11Paragraph 30Paragraph 149Paragraph 147Paragraph 219Paragraph 36
Judgments
Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [JPL, 1982, P37]; Julian Wood v SSCLG, Gravesham Borough Council [2015] EWCA Civ 195; Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, R (on the application of) v Epping Forest District Council & Anor (Rev 1) [2016] EWCA Civ 404

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 applied

The 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.

Appeals plan, £15 a month

With an account

What an account adds to this decision

20 other decided appeals within two kilometres of this site. In the app every dot opens its decision, and its letter wherever one was published, and you can draw your own site to see what has been decided around it.AllowedDismissedSplitThis decision
An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter
Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.
Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app
Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.
Start your free trial

More decisions in Ashfield

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2021

  1. Dismissed8 September 20266008160
    Land Between 191 and 234 Nottingham Road, Selston, Nottingham, NG16 6BT
  2. Dismissed28 January 20266001120
    Land Between 124 and 142 Church Lane, Selston, Nottinghamshire, NG16 6FD
  3. Dismissed30 December 20253373864
    2 The Hill, Kirkby-In-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, NG17 8JR
  4. Allowed3 November 20253366321
    Cedar House, Silverhill Lane, Teversal, Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, NG17 3JJ
  5. Dismissed27 October 20253364793
    Whitboro Lodge at 261 Wild Hill, Teversal, Nottinghamshire, NG17 3JF

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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every appeal around it, with its letter to read and the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out.