®Planning appeal decision
Land on the West side of Sandybridge Lane, Shafton, Barnsley, S72 8PL
Without planning permission, the material change of use of the Land for: i. The siting of caravans for human habitation with associated infrastructure (as marked in Appendix 1). ii. Importation of a skip and a shipping container (as marked in Appendix 1) iii. The storage of vehicles (as marked in Appendix 1) as well as other miscellaneous items and general detritus iv. The erection of outbuildings (as marked in Appendix 1) v. The erection of gates, walls, and fences (as marked in Appendix 1)
- Authority
- Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- caravan-gypsy · Minor traveller and caravan pitches
- Inspector
- Madge M
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the locality
- The effect of the development on highway safety
- The effect of the development on neighbouring occupiers' living conditions
- The effect of the development in terms of flood risk
- Whether the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and development plan policy
- If the development is inappropriate, its effect on openness
- Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt
What decided it
The development satisfied paragraph 155 of the Framework (grey belt land, demonstrable unmet need, sustainable location) and was therefore not inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
The development is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, there is a demonstrable need for it, and any limited harm can be mitigated by conditions, so the development accords with the development plan taken as a whole.
Framework references: 143, 155, 110, 115, 156, 157
Plan policies cited: Policy GD1, Policy D1, Policy T4, Policy Poll1, Policy GB3, Policy GT1, Policy GT2
Judgments cited: Miller-Mead v MHLG [1963] 2 WLR 225; Lisa Smith judgement
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.