Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Notice upheld24 August 20233311636

The land known as Happy Acres, Russ Hill, Charlwood, HORLEY, RH6 0EL

Without planning permission the erection of: 1. A sand school (marked 1 on the attached plan). 2. A stable building (marked 2 attached plan). 3. A kennel building (marked 3 on the attached plan). 4. A building (marked 4 on the attached plan). 5. An entrance gate, brick piers, brick walling and brick paved entrance way (marked 5 on the attached plan)

Authority
Mole Valley District Council
Appeal type
enforcement · Enforcement Notice
Procedure
Hearing
Development
other · Other minor developments
Inspector
Douglas L

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • Whether the breaches of planning control are inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies
  • If any of the breaches of planning control are inappropriate development, their effect on the openness of the Green Belt
  • The effect of the breaches of planning control on the character and appearance of the area
  • The effect of the breaches of planning control on biodiversity, including protected species, with particular regard to great crested newts and reptiles
  • If any of the breaches of planning control are inappropriate development, 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 the development

What decided it

Whether a realistic fallback position (principally under the GPDO) or other considerations amounted to very special circumstances clearly outweighing the Green Belt and other harm identified for each individual breach determined whether permission was granted or refused.

For the sand school, stable building, kennel building and the gate/piers/walls in Notice A, the very special circumstances (including a realistic GPDO fallback) clearly outweighed the limited or low Green Belt harm, so permission was granted; for the outbuilding and gate/piers/walls in Notice B and the barn/hardstanding in Notice A, no material considerations outweighed the harm identified, so permission was refused.

Framework references: 137, 138, 147, 148, 149, 150

Plan policies cited: Policy CS 1, Policy CS 14, Policy CS 15, Saved Policy ENV4, Saved Policy ENV15, Saved Policy ENV22, Saved Policy ENV23, Saved Policy ENV25, Saved Policy ENV57, Saved Policy RUD9, Saved Policy RUD14, Saved Policy RUD17, Saved Policy REC14

Judgments cited: Cardiff Rating Authority v Guest Keen Baldwin's Iron and Steel Co Ltd [1949] 1QB 385; Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v SSETR (No.2) [2000] 2 PLR 102

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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.