®Planning appeal decision
Plot 14, Top Park, Barnacle, CV7 9FS
Planning appeal 3328404 at Plot 14, Top Park, Barnacle, CV7 9FS (Rugby Borough Council) was dismissed on 15 March 2024 by Inspector Sargent J, following a hearing. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether it is inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
the Retention of 1 Gypsy and Traveller pitch comprising 1 static caravan, 1 touring caravan, 1 timber dog kennel, block paved parking area, gravel pathway, red brick walls and metal gates to front boundary, timber fencing to side and rear boundaries, and vehicular and pedestrian access off Top Park access road. Proposed erection of a brick outbuilding with a tiled roof. Appeal B: APP/E3715/W/23/3328398 Plot 15, Top Park, Top Road, Barnacle CV7 9FS
- Authority
- Rugby Borough Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- caravan-gypsy · Minor traveller and caravan pitches
- Inspector
- Sargent J
- Postcode
- CV7 9FS
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether it is inappropriate development in the Green Belt
- its effect on openness, the purposes of including land in the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the area
- whether a suitable access has been demonstrated
- whether it would give rise to other harms
- if harm would be caused by any or all of the above issues, whether this harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to very special circumstances
What decided it
the failure to demonstrate that each site had a suitable means of access, as the service road and access track lay outside the appeal site boundaries and consent from the relevant owners/highway authority had not been established, which could not be outweighed even where other considerations might otherwise have justified a temporary permission
the substantial Green Belt harm from inappropriateness, loss of openness and harm to character and appearance, combined with the unresolved access issue, was not clearly outweighed by the significant weight given to personal circumstances, unmet need and the best interests of the children, so very special circumstances were not established and the balance tipped against permission
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy DS2Policy GP2Policy NE3
- Judgments
- Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL 1982 P37]; Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin)
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 Rugby
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2024
- Notice varied and upheld14 May 20263377300Land Adjacent to White House Farm Industrial Estate, Oxford Road, Princethorpe, Rugby, Warwickshire, CV23 9QD
- Dismissed11 May 20266000671Bj House, Oxford Road, Ryton-on-Dunsmore, CV8 3EJ
- Notice varied and upheld7 May 20263348732The Chalet, Hinckley Road, Wolvey, LE10 3HQ
- Dismissed27 April 2026600188567 London Road, Dunsmore Heath, Stretton on Dunsmore, Warwickshire, CV23 9JB
- Notice varied and upheld16 January 20263351614Oakdene Rugby Road, Bretford, Rugby, CV23 0LB
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.