Planning appeal decision
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.
®