®Planning appeal decision
Land at The Rosary, Chesley Hill, Siston, South Gloucestershire, BS30 5NE
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
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
Framework references: 149, 150
Plan policies cited: Policy CS5, Policy CS34, Policy PSP7, Policy PSP40, Policy CS1, Policy CS9, Policy PSP1, Policy PSP2, Policy PSP38, Policy PSP39
Judgments cited: 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
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.