Planning appeal decision
The Shoe Box, Siston Lane South Gloucestershire,, Siston, South Gloucestershire, BS30 5LY
Planning appeal 6001544 at The Shoe Box, Siston Lane South Gloucestershire,, Siston, South Gloucestershire, BS30 5LY (South Gloucestershire Council) was dismissed on 26 March 2026 by Inspector Rogers J, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the location of the site is suitable for the proposal, having regard to the promotion of alternative modes of transport to the private vehicle.
the demolition of existing residential outbuildings and erection of a new dwelling with associated parking and garden
- Authority
- South Gloucestershire Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Rogers J
- Postcode
- BS30 5LY
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the location of the site is suitable for the proposal, having regard to the promotion of alternative modes of transport to the private vehicle
- whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and relevant development plan policies, and the effect of the proposal on the openness and the purposes of the Green Belt
- the effect of the proposal on ecology, with particular regard to protected species
- the effect of the proposal on the safety of users of Siston Lane
- the effect of the proposal on water quality and flood risk
- the effect of the proposal on biodiversity
- 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 proposal
What decided it
The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt causing moderate harm to openness, and this harm together with the failure to demonstrate protection of protected species would not be clearly outweighed by the modest housing benefits, particularly given the unsustainable location dependent on private vehicle use.
The substantial weight given to harm to the Green Belt (inappropriateness and loss of openness) and harm to protected species was not clearly outweighed by the small-scale social, economic and environmental benefits of a single dwelling, even though moderate weight was attached to the contribution to housing supply shortfall.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy CS4APolicy CS5Policy CS8Policy CS9Policy CS35Policy PSP7Policy PSP11Policy PSP19
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 58Paragraph 110Paragraph 115Paragraph 154Paragraph 155
- Judgments
- Tiwana Construction Ltd v SSHCLG & West Suffolk Council [2025] EWHC 1485 (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 South Gloucestershire Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2026
- Dismissed13 October 20266010963Elmbarn Farm, Westerleigh Road, Westerleigh, BS37 8QF
- Dismissed13 October 20266009931Land at Wapley Road, Codrington, Bristol, BS37 6RY
- Planning permission granted4 September 20263378284Land Adjacent to Orchard Farm Cottage, Pomphrey Hill, Mangotsfield, Bristol, BS16 9NF
- Planning permission granted17 August 20263378286Land At Northwick Road, Pilning, Bristol, BS35 4LX
- Dismissed13 July 20266006492Long Acre Farm, Dodington Lane, Dodington, BS37 6SD
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.
®