®Planning appeal decision
Bugle Nurseries, 171 Upper Halliford Road, Shepperton, TW17 8SN
Outline application with approval sought for scale, access and siting, with details of appearance and landscaping reserved, for the demolition of existing buildings and structures, removal of waste transfer facility and the redevelopment of the site for up to 80 residential units and the provision of open space and a play area, plus associated works for landscaping, parking areas, pedestrian, cycle and vehicular routes
- Authority
- Spelthorne Borough Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Chamberlain G
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt
- The effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt
- Whether the proposal would be in a suitable location, with reference to policies concerned with development in areas at risk of flooding
- Whether the proposal would deliver an adequate mix of homes
- The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of Halliford Close, with reference to outlook
- Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations to establish the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal
What decided it
The substantial harm to Green Belt openness and purposes, combined with the unresolved flood risk sequential test, were not clearly outweighed by the other considerations, so very special circumstances were not established and clear reasons to refuse existed under Paragraph 11d)i.
The substantial and permanent harm to the Green Belt (inappropriateness, openness and purposes) together with the flood risk sequential test failure was not clearly outweighed by the benefits of housing and affordable housing delivery, brownfield reuse, economic benefits, open space provision and emerging policy support, so very special circumstances were not demonstrated and the balance tipped against the proposal.
Framework references: 11, 60, 74, 119, 120, 130, 142, 145, 148, 149, 161, 162, 163, 169
Plan policies cited: Policy GB1, Policy HO4, Policy EN1, Policy H1 (emerging), HS1/009 (emerging allocation)
Judgments cited: Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney (2018); Bernard Wheatcroft v Secretary of State for the Environment (1982)
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.