🏆 Winning Arguments

20. Given that I have concluded that the land can be considered as grey belt the main issues in this appeal are: 1) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, with particular regard to the appeal site’s location within the Kent Downs National Landscape, and also due to its proximity to Ancient Woodland; and 2) the occupier’s personal circumstances along with other relevant considerations.

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The recognised unmet need at the current time is a concern but the environmental policies relating to the Kent Downs National Landscape, the Metropolitan Green Belt, along with the Framework’s Grey Belt criteria, and the general character and appearance considerations, suggest that the deemed planning application should be refused. 53. However, I must also balance this with the family’s personal circumstances. As mentioned, the needs and interests of children – in this case a small baby - are a primary consideration, particularly in terms of health care as education is unlikely to be an issue for a few years yet. This cannot be satisfied with a roadside existence, and a settled base, at least in the short term, is obviously important to their wellbeing. 54. Alongside this, the Council’s approach, by way of emerging policy is an indication that the authority is attempting to meet its statutory requirements by way of allocations to help meet the actual degree of unmet need. Given this gypsy strategy and the loca…

The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed, and planning permission

Conclusion on Ground (a) and the Deemed Planning Application 63. In accordance with policy LG6 of the SLP, I have assessed the development against the Framework and found the development is inappropriate in the Green Belt and very special circumstances to support the retention of the toilet block for purposes ancillary to the Butterfly World Biome visitor attraction without condition 1 have not been demonstrated. The appeal on ground (a) fails and planning permission shall be refused on the DPA. Appeal B on Ground (g) 64. The period for compliance specified in Notice B is 6 months. However, the appellant seeks a period of 12 months as the business uses taking place on the site could not operate without these facilities. No substantiated evidence has been provided as to whether any other toilet facilities exist on the appeal site. 65. Given my finding on Appeal A, there will be a continued need for toilet facilities to be provided to serve the development allowed. However, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I find 6 months is a reasonable period within which the appellant can look for suitable alternative facilities to serve the Appeal A development. 66. For the above …

The appeal is dismissed, the enforcement notice is upheld, and planning

20. Given that I have concluded that the land can be considered as grey belt the main issues in this appeal are: 1) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, with particular regard to the appeal site’s location within the Kent Downs National Landscape; and also due to its proximity to Ancient Woodland; and 2) the occupier’s personal circumstances along with other relevant considerations.

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The recognised unmet need at the current time is a concern but the environmental policies relating to the Kent Downs National Landscape, the Metropolitan Green Belt – along with the Framework’s Grey Belt criteria, and the general character and appearance considerations suggest that the deemed planning application should be refused. 53. However, I must also balance this with the family’s personal circumstances. As mentioned the needs and interests of the children are a primary consideration, both in terms of education and health care. This cannot be satisfied with a roadside existence, and a settled base, at least in the short term, is obviously important to their well-being. 54. Alongside this, the Council’s approach, by way of emerging policy is an indication that the authority is attempting to meet its statutory requirements by way of allocations to help meet the actual degree of unmet need. Given this gypsy strategy and the local development scheme’s timetable I am satisfied that a temporary and personal pe…

The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed, and planning permission

25. The appeal on ground (a) is that planning permission ought to be granted for the development undertaken. The main issues are: 5 • whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • the effect of the development in relation to the character and appearance of the area; • the significance of any contamination present on the site; • if the development is inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other co…

67. There are considerations which support the appeal. I attach significant weight to the lack of an up-to-date 5-year supply of housing land and to the provision of what are likely to be more affordable units of accommodation for rent. I attach very limited weight to local economic benefits. 68. The Council’s emerging Local Plan remains under examination at this stage. According to the Council’s delivery programme7, the target date for adoption of the Plan is December 2026, however it is uncertain whether this timescale will be achieved. The Council says that because of its emerging status, very limited weight ought to be given to the policies in that plan. There has been no information submitted that would lead me to take a different view. 69. I have also taken into account Policy S5 of the Framework. This states that where development in the Green Belt would not be inappropriate, proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework. There is no information before me leading me to conclude the development would be at odds with any nationa…

21. The 2 areas are, in the terms set out in the PPTS, sustainable. Conclusion on the main issue 22. With respect to the advice in the Framework, in particular paragraph 155, and therefore this main issue, the development is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It utilises grey belt land, not fundamentally undermining the purposes of the remaining Green Belt, there is a demonstrable unmet need for the development and this is a sustainable location. This therefore complies with CS Policy CS5 by reason of complying also with the Framework. As such, and in the absence of other objections, I consider that the development proposed is in accordance with the development plan read as a whole, and it follows that planning permission should be granted. Conditions 23. Draft planning conditions were discussed at the hearing. The Framework confirms that planning conditions should be kept to a minimum. They should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. 24. Firstly, the planning permission is being granted for people who comply with the definition of Gypsie Concl…

The appeal is allowed in part and planning permission is granted in part on the

3. There are three main issues in this case: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the Bollin Valley Local Landscape designation. • The effect of the proposal on highway safety in relation to the proposed junction onto Prestbury Road. • Whether the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of development plan policy and the National Planning Policy Framework ('the Framework') 4. The highway safety issue was a matter raised by local residents, but not by the Council. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectora…

Planning balance and conclusion 88. As set out above, there would be minor harm to the character and appearance of the area, and low levels of less than substantial harm to two heritage assets. In relation to the latter I have already concluded that the public benefits are more than sufficient to outweigh that harm. 89. The Council’s reason for refusal stated that the proposal represented inappropriate development in the Green Belt. However, as set out above I have concluded that this is not the case, and have referenced the Framework policy which attributes significant weight in favour of the appeal proposal. 90. I attribute substantial weight to the provision of general needs and affordable housing in the light of the shortfall in the housing land supply position 91. In addition I ascribe additional limited weight individually to various elements of the proposal – the provision of on site public open space; improved pedestrian routes; public transport provision; and the short/medium term growth in construction jobs https://www.gov.uk/planning-

The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted (with all matters

Further, policy DM23, which serves to secure high quality development, also requires that development is compatible with its surroundings, having regard to scale, siting and materials. 18. Having had regard to the various factors involved in this case, and the site’s contextual setting, I am struggling to pinpoint any actual harm resulting from the gravel laid I am also mindful that this is a very low key use, complemented by the surfacing which the enforcement notice targets. If additional caravans were brought onto the land the Council can address this using remedial powers held. 19. In the circumstances I find that the coloured gravel brought onto the land, along with its purpose is compatible with the surroundings and, moreover, it does not have any significant impact on the intrinsic character of the countryside. I also find no identifiable conflict with LP policies S11, DM10 or DM23. Neither is the development involved at odds in direct conflict with relevant advice in the National Planning Policy Framework. Conclusion 22. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed on ground (a) and, accordingly, planning permission will be granted. T C King