Town Planner Pro
Free trial
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Notice varied and upheld10 January 20243325889

Land at Paynes Cottage, Potbridge, Odiham, Hook, Hampshire, RG29 1JW

Planning appeal 3325889 at Land at Paynes Cottage, Potbridge, Odiham, Hook, Hampshire, RG29 1JW (Hart District Council) was allowed in part (a split decision) on 10 January 2024 by Inspector Moore D, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the development is appropriate to its countryside location, having regard to evidence of need.

Without planning permission, the material change of use of the Land from a single dwellinghouse to a mixed-use comprising use of the land to run a telecommunications equipment installation business facilitated by hard surfacing, with associated indoor and outdoor ancillary and commercial storage, a training area with erected poles, pole mounted lighting and CCTV, parking and storage of vehicles, use of the dwelling as a dwellinghouse, and the stationing of a caravan for residential use

Authority
Hart District Council
Appeal type
enforcement · Enforcement Notice
Procedure
Inquiry
Development
employment-industrial · Change of use
Inspector
Moore D
Postcode
RG29 1JW

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • Whether the development is appropriate to its countryside location, having regard to evidence of need.
  • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the countryside, having regard to the nearby Public Right of Way.
  • Whether the development would lead to a high risk of surface water flooding.
  • The effect of the development on the living conditions of nearby occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance, and lighting.

What decided it

The conflict with development plan Policies NBE1, ED1 and ED3 arising from the development's inappropriateness to its countryside location, which the Inspector afforded significant weight and found was not outweighed by other considerations.

The significant weight attributed to the conflict with the development plan policies on countryside location outweighed the limited/modest weight given to the economic, infrastructure (5G/broadband) and drainage benefits, so the balance did not favour granting permission, even on a temporary basis.

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies
Policy NBE1Policy NBE2Policy NBE5Policy ED1Policy ED3Policy GEN1Policy GEN2Policy CON23Policy B2Policy B4Policy P&C1Policy NE5Policy INF6
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 11Paragraph 88Paragraph 89Paragraph 115Paragraph 118Paragraph 155Paragraph 180Paragraph 191
Judgments
Crawley BC v Hickmet Ltd [1998] JPL 210; East Barnet UDC v British Transport Commission and Another [1962] 2 QG 484; Murfitt v SSE [1980] JPL 598; Somak Travel v SSE [1987] JPL 630; Kestrel Hydro v SSCLG & Spelthorne BC [2016] EWCA Civ 784; McCarthy v SSCLG & South Cambs DC [2006] EWHC 3287 (Admin); Moore v SSCLG & LB Bromley [2013] EWCA Civ 1191

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 applied

The 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.

Appeals plan, £15 a month

With an account

What an account adds to this decision

20 other decided appeals within two kilometres of this site. In the app every dot opens its decision, and its letter wherever one was published, and you can draw your own site to see what has been decided around it.AllowedDismissedSplitThis decision
An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter
Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.
Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app
Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.
Start your free trial

More decisions in Hart

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2024

  1. Dismissed3 September 20266004528
    Malthouse Mews, Brew House Lane, Hartley Wintney, RG27 8QA
  2. Dismissed30 July 20266005446
    18 Grenville Drive, Church Crookham, Fleet, GU51 5NR
  3. Allowed13 February 20266002947
    Highbank, Copse Lane, Long Sutton, Hampshire, RG29 1SX
  4. Allowed27 January 20263372608
    Grey House Mount Pleasant, Hartley Wintney, Hook, RG27 8PW
  5. Allowed8 January 20263365471
    Warbrook House Reading Road, Eversley, Hook, RG27 0PL

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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every appeal around it, with its letter to read and the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out.