Planning appeal decision
Atlanta, Wargrave Road, Remenham, Wokingham, RG9 3JD
the erection of an infill front extension, timber decking, roof to storage area and installation of a replacement flue (retrospective). Summary
- Authority
- Wokingham Borough Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Freer P
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the breach of planning control alleged in the notice is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and the development plan
- the effect of the development, if any, on the character and appearance of the area
- whether the development increases the risk of flooding on the site and elsewhere
- if the breach of planning control alleged in the notice is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development
- whether the Council's decision to refuse to grant a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development (LDC) was well founded
What decided it
The finding that Building A and the decking constituted inappropriate new development causing harm to Green Belt openness and increased flood risk, unmitigated by any very special circumstances.
Substantial weight attached to Green Belt harm from inappropriateness and significant weight to flood risk were not clearly outweighed by the limited/minimal weight given to the appellant's countervailing considerations, so very special circumstances did not exist and permission was refused.
Framework references: 149, 147, 137, 148
Plan policies cited: Policy TB01, Policy CP12, Policy CP3, Policy CP11, Policy CC03, Policy TB21, Policy CC09
Judgments cited: Gravesham BC v SSE & O'Brien [1983] JPL 306; Impey v SSE & Lake District SPB [1981] JPL 363; Welwyn Hatfield BC v SSCLG & Beesley [2011] UKSC 15; Oates v SSCLG & Canterbury CC [2018] EWCA Civ 2229; Sage v SSETR & Maidstone BC [2003] UKHL 22; R v E Sussex CC ex parte Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd [2002] UKHL 8
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.
®