®Planning appeal decision
Brickfield Cottage, Edgebold, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, SY5 8NT
Planning appeal 3278441 at Brickfield Cottage, Edgebold, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, SY5 8NT (Shropshire County Council) was dismissed on 30 November 2023 by Inspector Kean G, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether there is a lawful use of the site as a whole for a mixed residential and car repairs/maintenance use, with particular reference to the 2014 Permission and the alleged continued use of the wider site.
garage workshop
- Authority
- Shropshire County Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- employment-industrial · Major offices/R&D/light industry
- Inspector
- Kean G
- Postcode
- SY5 8NT
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether there is a lawful use of the site as a whole for a mixed residential and car repairs/maintenance use, with particular reference to the 2014 Permission and the alleged continued use of the wider site
- whether the unauthorised operational development and mixed use should be granted permission
- in Appeal A, whether the requirements of the notice under ground (f) exceed what is necessary and whether the compliance periods under ground (g) are reasonable
What decided it
The appellant failed to prove continuous ten-year mixed use of the wider site and the harm caused by the new garage to character, appearance and neighbours' living conditions outweighed the economic benefits of the business.
The considerable harm to character and appearance and the very significant harm to living conditions from noise and disturbance clearly outweighed the economic benefits of the car repair business, resulting in conflict with the development plan as a whole.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy CS5Policy CS6Policy MD2
- Judgments
- The Queen on the application of Ocado Retail Limited v London Borough of Islington v Telereal Trillium Limited, Concerned Residents of Tufnell Park [2021] EWHC 1509 (Admin); Iddenden v Secretary of State for the Environment [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1433; Jennings Motors v SSE [1982] JPL 181; Hancock v SSCLG & Windsor and Maidenhead RBC [2012] EWHC 3704; Westminster City Council Appellants v Great Portland Estates Plc [1985] 1 AC 661
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 Shropshire
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2023
- Dismissed10 July 20266005338Land to the Rear of Darby Close, Nesscliffe, Shrewsbury, SY4 1DN
- Allowed7 July 20263378204Orchard Cottage, Ashford Carbonell, Shropshire, SY8 4BX
- Allowed5 May 20266004043Marche Buildings, Unit B2, Marche Lane, Halfway House, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, SY5 9DE
- Dismissed22 April 20266001790Montgomery Waters, Shrewsbury Road, Church Stretton, Shropshire, SY6 6HD
- Notice upheld31 March 20263368306Land at Woodview , Newcastle on Clun, Shropshire, SY7 8PE
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.