®Planning appeal decision
Land at Curdle Hill Farm and Upper Court Farms, Chadlington, CHIPPING NORTON, OX7 3NS
an extension to existing parking area to formalise temporary parking and provision of new access arrangements. Form new storage compound and associated landscaping
- Authority
- West Oxfordshire District Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- retail · Change of use
- Inspector
- Perrins R
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the countryside location and the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
What decided it
The fallback position of an extant, unrestricted farm shop permission already attracting high visitor numbers meant the additional AONB harm from the mixed use was only moderate, and this was outweighed—on a temporary basis only—by the significant economic and farm diversification benefits, except in respect of the Lowland Barn restaurant use where the harm was not outweighed.
The moderate harm to the character and appearance of the AONB, reduced by the fallback of the extant farm shop permission, was outweighed on a temporary 36-month basis by the significant economic, employment and farm diversification benefits for the café/farm shop/car parking elements, but was not outweighed for a permanent permission or for the restaurant use in Lowland Barn, which was refused.
Plan policies cited: Policy OS2, Policy EH1, Policy EH2, Policy BC1, Policy E2
Judgments cited: Miller Mead v MHLG [1963] 1 A11 ER 459; Burdle & Williams v SSE & New Forest DC [1972] 1 WLR 1207; Keenan v Woking BC & SSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 438; RSBS Developments Ltd v Secretary of State [2020] EWHC 3077 (Admin); Brooks and Burton Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1977] 1 WLR 1294; Barnett v Secretary for Communities & Local Government [2009] EWCA Civ 476; Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809; Howells v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor QBD Admin; Hammersmith LBC v Secretary of State for the Environment [1975] 30 P. & C.R. 19; Hawkey v Secretary of State for the Environment [1971] 22 P. & C.R. 610; Kestrel Hydro v SSCLG & Spelthorne BC [2015] 1654 (Admin), [2016] EWCA Civ 784
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.