Planning appeal decision
Land at The Rosary, Chesley Hill, Siston, South Gloucestershire, BS30 5NE
Planning appeal 3286651 at Land at The Rosary, Chesley Hill, Siston, South Gloucestershire, BS30 5NE (South Gloucestershire Council) was dismissed on 28 April 2023 by Inspector Fagan N, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Ground (b): whether the matters alleged in the notice have occurred.
without planning permission, the subdivision of the former single residential planning unit to create an additional new residential planning unit, including the erection of a residential dwelling within that new unit
- Authority
- South Gloucestershire Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Fagan N
- Postcode
- BS30 5NE
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Ground (b): whether the matters alleged in the notice have occurred
- Ground (c): whether the matters alleged (if they occurred) constitute a breach of planning control
- Ground (d): whether, at the date the notice was issued, no enforcement action could be taken in respect of the breach
- Ground (a): whether planning permission ought to be granted for the breach
- Ground (f): whether the steps required by the notice exceed what is necessary to remedy the breach
What decided it
The Building was found to be a separate, self-contained dwellinghouse constituting inappropriate development in the Green Belt, for which no very special circumstances existed to outweigh the harm to openness and conflict with the development plan.
the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and adverse effect on openness, together with conflict with the Council's spatial strategy, was not outweighed by the other considerations advanced, so no very special circumstances existed to justify departure from Green Belt policy
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy CS5Policy CS34Policy PSP7Policy PSP40Policy CS1Policy CS9Policy PSP1Policy PSP2Policy PSP38Policy PSP39
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 149Paragraph 150
- Judgments
- Gravesham BC v Secretary of State for the Environment & O'Brien [1983] JPL 306; Burdle v Secretary of State for the Environment, [1972] 1W.L.R. 1207 (1972); Wakelin v Secretary of State for the Environment (1983) 46 P, & C.R. 214 (1978); Welwyn Hatfield BC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Beesley [2011] UKSC 15; Warwick DC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2022] EWHC 2145 (Admin); Kestrel Hydro v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ 784; Murfitt v Secretary of State for the Environment (1980) 40 P. & C.R. 254; Somak Travel Ltd. v Secretary of State for the Environment (1988) 55 P. & C.R. 250; Bowring v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] J.P.L. 1417
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 South Gloucestershire Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2023
- Dismissed13 October 2026601187149 Court Road, Kingswood, Bristol, BS15 9QG
- Dismissed13 October 20266010963Elmbarn Farm, Westerleigh Road, Westerleigh, BS37 8QF
- Dismissed13 October 20266009931Land at Wapley Road, Codrington, Bristol, BS37 6RY
- Planning permission granted4 September 20263378284Land Adjacent to Orchard Farm Cottage, Pomphrey Hill, Mangotsfield, Bristol, BS16 9NF
- Planning permission granted17 August 20263378286Land At Northwick Road, Pilning, Bristol, BS35 4LX
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.
®