®Planning appeal decision
Highfield House Wraxall Hill, Wraxall, BRISTOL, BS48 1NA
described on the application form as, “Resiting of 1no. dwelling (approved under application 21/P/1197/CQA) to location of agricultural barn (approved under application 20/P/2785/AGA) and resiting of the agricultural barn to location of the approved 1no. dwelling”
- Authority
- North Somerset Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- O'Doherty A
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies
- the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt
- whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development, having particular regard to the spatial strategy in the development plan and the accessibility of services and facilities
- the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area
- the effect of the proposed development on trees
- whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposed development
What decided it
The substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and reduction in openness, combined with harm to character and appearance and unsuitability of location, are not clearly outweighed by other considerations including the fallback position and housing land supply position, such that very special circumstances do not exist.
The substantial harms to the Green Belt (inappropriateness and loss of openness) and moderate harm to character and appearance, together with very little weight to conflict with spatial strategy policies, substantially outweigh the limited benefits of one additional dwelling, the fallback position (given only moderate weight), and energy efficiency gains, such that very special circumstances do not exist to justify the development.
Framework references: 11, 124, 135, 143, 153, 154
Plan policies cited: Policy DM12, Policy CS14, Policy CS33, Policy CS5, Policy CS12, Policy DM10, Policy DM32, Policy CS4, Policy CS9, Policy DM9
Judgments cited: Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC & others [2017] EWCA Civ 1314
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.