®Planning appeal decision
Laurel Lodge, Airfield Lane, Acaster Malbis, YORK, YO23 2PW
Without planning permission, the carrying out of building and operational development and specifically the erection of a single storey dwelling, a car port/ garden store, creation of hardstanding including patio and paved areas, internal access road, gate and brick pillars, free standing light poles/lamp post and the erection of boundary fencing along with internal fencing on the Land
- Authority
- Selby District Council *
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Merrett R
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies
- The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt
- The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
- Whether the development can be regarded as in a sustainable location.
- If the development is inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.
What decided it
The net benefit to the openness of the Green Belt and the significant improvement to character and appearance (compared with the former piggery buildings) clearly outweighed the harm from inappropriateness, establishing very special circumstances for Appeal A, whereas Paddock Lodge's lack of substantial completion and absence of a ground (a) appeal meant Appeals C and D failed.
the harm by way of inappropriateness (substantial weight) and limited harm from the countryside location were clearly outweighed by the significant weight given to the net benefit to openness and the significant improvement in character and appearance, establishing very special circumstances in favour of Appeal A
Framework references: 137, 138, 147, 149, 150
Plan policies cited: Policy SP2, Policy SP3, Policy SP18, Policy SP19, Saved Policy ENV1
Judgments cited: Sage v SSETR & Maidstone BC [2003] UKHL 22; Turner v SSCLG & East Dorset Council [2016]
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.