84 Gidley Way, Horspath, Oxford, OX33 1TG

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

• Appeal A: whether the breach of planning control alleged in the notice is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; the effect on character and appearance of the area; whether harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations
• Appeal B: whether the breach of planning control alleged in the notice is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; the effect on character and appearance of the area; whether harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations
• Appeal C: whether the matters stated in the notice have occurred; whether the use has become lawful through the passage of time; the period for compliance
• Appeal D: whether the breach of planning control alleged in the notice is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; whether the development promotes energy efficiency and sustainable design; whether harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations

What decided it

Appeal A and B were dismissed because the development constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt causing substantial harm to openness and unacceptable harm to rural character with no very special circumstances to justify it. Appeal C was dismissed because the use had not accrued immunity through continuous use for four years. Appeal D was allowed because the re-use of an existing permanent and substantial building as an office was not inappropriate development in the Green Belt and could be made compliant with sustainable design policies through conditions.

Appeal A and B: the substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and significant harm to character and appearance were not outweighed by the limited weight attached to the appellant's personal circumstances. Appeal D: the absence of significant additional harm to Green Belt openness from the office use compared to the previous ancillary office use, combined with the ability to secure compliance with energy efficiency policies through conditions, justified allowing the appeal.