Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Notice varied and upheld4 February 20263370587

35 Howmead, BERKELEY, GL13 9AR

Authority
Stroud District Council
Appeal type
enforcement · Enforcement Notice
Procedure
Inquiry
Development
residential · Change of use
Inspector
Moss J

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • Whether or not the location of the development is acceptable, having regard to the relevant policies and guidance on the matter of its location
  • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area

What decided it

The confined extent and already-domesticated character of the Appendix K Land meant the harm caused by the material change of use there was limited and outweighed the conflict with the development plan, whereas the same could not be said for the residential use of the remainder of the site.

For the Appendix K Land, the particular circumstances (limited harm from a small, already-domestic area of limited alternative use) outweighed the conflict with the development plan and justified granting permission; for the rest of the site, no material consideration outweighed the harm to the Council's development strategy and to rural character, so permission was refused and the notice upheld.

Plan policies cited: Policy CP3, Policy CP15, Policy CP14, Policy ES7, Policy ES12, Core policy 1

Judgments cited: Murfitt v SSE & East Cambridgeshire DC [1980] JPL 598; Caldwell & Timberstore Ltd v SSLUHC & Buckinghamshire Council [2024] EWCA Civ 467; Kestrel Hydro v SSCLG & Spelthorne BC [2016] EWCA Civ 784

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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.