®Planning appeal decision
J A W Bendall & Sons, New Farm, Marksbury, Bath, BA2 9HJ
Planning appeal 3278320 at J A W Bendall & Sons, New Farm, Marksbury, Bath, BA2 9HJ (Bath and North East Somerset Council) was dismissed on 4 February 2022 by Inspector Jones RE, 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 National Planning Policy Framework, any relevant development plan policies and the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it.
change of use of agricultural land to a mixed agricultural and sui generis use for the training of canines
- Authority
- Bath and North East Somerset Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- leisure-sport · Change of use
- Inspector
- Jones RE
- Postcode
- BA2 9HJ
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, any relevant development plan policies and the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it
- the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area
- whether or not the proposed development is an acceptable form of farm diversification with reference to local policy
- whether or not the proposed development would provide a suitable location for the training of dogs, with particular reference to local and national policy
- if it is inappropriate development, 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 necessary to justify the development
What decided it
The proposal would result in inappropriate development in the Green Belt with moderate loss of openness and harm to character and appearance, and the moderate benefits do not clearly outweigh the substantial weight given to Green Belt harm.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy CP8Policy GB1Policy RE3Policy ST1
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 149Paragraph 150Paragraph 85
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 Bath and North East Somerset
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2022
- Allowed19 August 20266005916Parcel 1643 Middle Piece Lane, Burnett, Keynsham, BS31 2ED
- Dismissed13 July 20266002997Land Between 92 And 106, London Road West, Lower Swainswick, Bath, BA1 7DA
- Dismissed9 July 20266008028Blossom Manor, Palmers Lane Tunley, Bath, BA2 0DZ
- Dismissed30 June 20266006198561 Bath Road, Saltford, BS31 3JS
- Allowed13 May 202660013842 Culverhay, Compton Dando, Bristol, BS39 4LQ
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.