®Planning appeal decision
Land Adjacent To Greystones, Ashgrove, Peasedown St John, BA2 8EG
Planning appeal 3321859 at Land Adjacent To Greystones, Ashgrove, Peasedown St John, BA2 8EG (Bath and North East Somerset Council) was dismissed on 13 March 2024 by Inspector Cuthbert L, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the location and land use of the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt, taking into account the purposes of including land within it.
Permission in Principle for an infill residential development of 2 no. dwellings
- Authority
- Bath and North East Somerset Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Cuthbert L
- Postcode
- BA2 8EG
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the location and land use of the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt, taking into account the purposes of including land within it
- the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt
- whether it would provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to the development strategy for the area
- if the proposal is inappropriate development, 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
What decided it
The proposal fails to constitute limited infilling in the Green Belt as the appeal site represents a definite visual break marking the transition from village to open countryside, and the identified harms to the Green Belt and conflict with the development strategy are not clearly outweighed by other considerations.
the substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, the erosion of openness, conflict with Green Belt purposes, and considerable harm from locating development contrary to the spatial strategy were not clearly outweighed by the moderate social, environmental and economic benefits, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy CP8Policy GB1Policy GB2Policy DW1Policy RE4
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 142Paragraph 143Paragraph 153Paragraph 154Paragraph 155
- Judgments
- Julian Wood v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Gravesham Borough Council [2015]; R (Tate) v Northumberland CC (2018) [EWCA] Civ1519
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in Bath and North East Somerset
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2024
- Allowed19 August 20266005916Parcel 1643 Middle Piece Lane, Burnett, Keynsham, BS31 2ED
- Dismissed9 July 20266008028Blossom Manor, Palmers Lane Tunley, Bath, BA2 0DZ
- Dismissed30 June 20266006198561 Bath Road, Saltford, BS31 3JS
- Allowed13 May 202660013842 Culverhay, Compton Dando, Bristol, BS39 4LQ
- Notice varied and upheld12 May 20263349091Norton Lane Barn Norton Lane, Wellow, Bath, BA2 8QR
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.