®Planning appeal decision
Riverside, Fairham Brook Lane, Bunny, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG11 0GB
Planning appeal 3337651 at Riverside, Fairham Brook Lane, Bunny, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG11 0GB (Rushcliffe Borough Council) was allowed in part (a split decision) on 8 September 2025 by Inspector Shields T, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the structure is inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Erection of a timber structure (19.8m x 6.7m x 3m height) with windows, doors and corrugated roof, constructed as a mobile health and welfare shelter for agricultural workers
- Authority
- Rushcliffe Borough Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- agricultural · Other minor developments
- Inspector
- Shields T
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the structure is inappropriate development in the Green Belt
- The effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the effect on the significance of Bunny Hall, a Grade I Listed Building
What decided it
The structure's inappropriate size, design and materials, which give it the appearance of a modern residential bungalow, cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and to the significance of the Grade I listed Bunny Hall, with no public benefits to outweigh this harm.
The moderate less-than-substantial harm to the heritage asset and significant harm to character and appearance were given great weight in accordance with Framework policy, and no public benefits were advanced to outweigh these harms, resulting in refusal of permission.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1 Policy 10Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2 Policy 1Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2 Policy 21Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2 Policy 28
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 154Paragraph 215
- Judgments
- Nelsovil v SSE [1962] 13 P&CR 151; Thrasyvoulou v SSE & Hackney LBC (No1) [1984] JPL 732; Gabbitas v SSE & Newham LBC [1985] JPL 630; Wealden DC v SSE & Day [1988] JPL 268; Ravensdale Ltd v SSCLG & Waltham Forest LBC [2016] EWHC 2374 (Admin); R (Save Woolley Valley Action Group Ltd) v Bath and North East Somerset Council [2012] EWHC 2161 (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 Rushcliffe
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025
- Dismissed9 June 20266004544137 Melton Road, Stanton on the Wolds, NG12 5PJ
- Allowed1 June 20266005540200 Melton Road, Stanton on the Wolds, NG12 5BP
- Allowed5 May 2026600641978 Cropwell Road, Radcliffe On Trent, Nottinghamshire, NG12 2JG
- Allowed16 June 20253358676Land North West of Lammas Farm, Kneeton Road, East Bridgford, Nottinghamshire, NG13 8PJ
- Notice upheld12 May 20253356371Christmas Cottage Flawforth Lane, Ruddington, Nottingham, NG11 6NG
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.