®Planning appeal decision
Weigh Bridge House, Fry's Bottom, Chelwood, Bristol, BS39 5QN
1. Without Planning Permission, the construction of a non-agricultural storage building in the approximate location marked ‘A’ on the attached plan. 2. Without Planning Permission, the importation of material and carrying out of Engineering Operations in the form of the expansion of a level area of hardstanding
- Authority
- Bath and North East Somerset Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- other · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Whitfield J
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Appeal C: Whether the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt
- Appeal C: The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt
- Appeal C: The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area
- Appeal C: The effect of the development on protected species, habitats and trees
- Appeal C: Whether the development is acceptable in terms of ground stability
- Appeal C: 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 development
- Appeal D: Whether the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt
- Appeal D: The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt
- Appeal D: The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area
- Appeal D: The effect of the development on highway safety
- Appeal D: The effect of the development on protected species and habitats
- Appeal D: The effect of the development on the living conditions of nearby residents in respect of noise and disturbance, and pollution
- Appeal D: The effect of the development in terms of watercourse pollution
- Appeal D: 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 development
What decided it
The outcome in each appeal turned on findings of physical fact — whether the structure/use alleged actually existed, was immune from enforcement, or complied with an extant permission — with, where a ground (a)/deemed application arose, Green Belt and ecological/ground-stability harms proving decisive against the development.
In Appeal C the absence of Green Belt harm from the surviving access track was outweighed by its likely harm to ecology, habitats, trees and ground stability, leading to refusal; in Appeal D the very limited economic benefits of the mixed use did not clearly outweigh the substantial Green Belt harm (inappropriateness and openness) together with significant harm to character, highway safety, ecology, residential amenity and watercourse pollution, so very special circumstances were not established.
Framework references: 153, 154
Plan policies cited: Policy NE2, Policy D2, Policy NE3, Policy NE3a, Policy NE6, Policy PCS6, CP8, DW1, ST7, PCS5, GB1, PCS3, D6, Policy 12, Policy CNP15
Judgments cited: Gravesham BC v SSE & O'Brien [1983] JPL 306; Sage v SSETR & Maidstone BC [2003] UKHL 22; Burdle & Williams v SSE & New Forest DC [1972] 1 WLR 1207; East Sussex CC v SSCLG [2009] EWHC 3841 (Admin)
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.