®Planning appeal decision
The Elms Farm, East Hewish Lane, Hewish, Somerset, BS24 6RZ
described on the application form as, “Extension & Additional Storey to open market permission 21/P/1800/FUL
- Authority
- North Somerset Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- O'Doherty A
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area
- whether or not the appeal site is an acceptable location for the proposal, with respect to its vulnerability to flooding
What decided it
The failure to demonstrate that the sequential test for flood risk had been passed, combined with the disproportionate scale of the extension conflicting with Policy DM45, provided a clear reason for refusal under paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework, displacing the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
the benefits of the proposal, including housing contribution, farm diversification, renewable energy use, and the betterment over the fallback position, were outweighed by the significant harms of disproportionate extension to the barn and failure to pass the sequential flood risk test, which provided a clear reason for refusal under Framework paragraph 11(d)(i)
Framework references: 159, 164, 11
Plan policies cited: Policy DM45, Policy CS3, Policy DM1
Judgments cited: Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC & others [2017] EWCA Civ 1314
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.