Green Belt appeal decisions
Updated 11 May 2007, this page includes various recent decisions on appeals against refusal of planning consent. Summarises of appeal decisions arising from refusal of planning consent are available at www.Planning Reource.co,uk/dcs, with a copy of the decision letter also available for a fee.
'SoS' = Secretary of State. 'DETR' is now ‘DCLG’ = Dept for Communities and Local Government.
car park refused. The proposal was to use vacant industrial land for
parking and storing vehicles owned by customers of Gatwick Airport. The Inspector decided this seasonal use
materially harmed the openness of the GB.
Off-airport parking was contrary to development plan policies aimed
at encouraging the use of public
transport by passengers.
park-and-ride refused in Met GB. London Underground’s proposal at the Hatton
Cross station would be an important means of transferring car users to the
train. However it would encroach into
the countryside due to the extensive hard surfacing, lighting columns, street
furniture and cars parked for much of the day and evening. The site was in a defined public safety zone
within which there was a general presumption against new and replacement
development. There would be no quiet
period and the turning into the car park would be dangerous and unsatisfactory,
materially affecting highway safety.
airport parking refused. A farm is currently used for 120 covered car parking spaces and 180 in the
open air. An enforcement order was
upheld because it caused urban sprawl.
Even if parking was restricted to indoors it would still be
inappropriate, but this would be difficult to achieve and impossible to
airport car parking. In Gloucs GB, the Inspector quashed one EO as
invalid but upheld another because the parking area had not originally been
built in connection with operational use of the airport. The two car parks had been leased to building
contractors operating a park & ride facility relating to construction of
government buildings at Cheltenham. On
the first EO, the notice alleged a material change of use on only part of the
unit, the use described still has to describe the whole unit., so it was
flawed. It could not be corrected
without injustice to the appellant – Gloucestershire Airport Ltd. On the second EO, the Inspector decided the
use was not acceptable under GPDR. The
operator failed to consult the Local Planning Authority as required under class
A. The land had not been operationally
associated with the airport at the time of being laid out. No evidence was produced that the car parks were necessary so there were
no very special circumstances.
airport parking allowed at nursery glasshouse.
It related to 8 bays
of a 17-bay glasshouse at a nursery complex.
The building was reasonably permanent and in keeping with the surroundings. The vehicles would be stored inside so it was
not inappropriate in the green belt.
park lighting at care home harmful in
Berks GB. Six 3m high lamp posts in the car park at the
front of the care home would harm the character of the area and residential
amenity, and decrease the openness of the GB.
This undermined the objective of protecting the countryside from
encroachment. The appellant argued their 24-hour operational use
necessitated lighting on Health and Safety grounds. The Inspector was unconvinced that the nature
and intensity of the proposed lighting was the best solution and other
solutions should be explored.
ground car park in Met GB cannot be used for airport parking - Bishop
Stortford Football Club was served with an enforcement order to stop a park and
ride facility for Stansted airport. The
club argued that no such restriction was made when planning approval was given
in 1996. The Inspector decided that the
car park was intended solely for football supporters use, and the park and ride
was outside the scope of that permission.
There had been no examination of alternative sites, as required by the
rail station car park refused - The commuter car park in a large field next to
the station would affect the openness of the GB and harm the character of the
area, ruled the Inspector. Existing facilities were inadequate but the proposal
was not part of a local transport plan and the lighting would erode the rural
character of the area to an unacceptable degree. While the encouragement of
rail use was an inmportant aspect of sustainability it did not outweigh the
harm to the GB. Tonbridge & Malling BC 14 Oct 2002.
Gatwick GB car park refused - A planning application was made for the continued use of a permanent travelling showman's yard to park 530 car plus a new application for 535 car spaces on another site. The Inspector refused permission for this GB site saying that there was a surplus of capacity. the High Court reversed this decision. The Court of Appeal agrred with the Inspector, being inappropriate in the GB with no very special circumstances given. There was a considerable amount of unused land at the airport. Hammond v SoSTLR 12 July 2002. Ref C/2002/0597
Park & Ride dismissed
Council wanted a 250 (& up to 500) car Park & Ride scheme on 2ha of
green belt land in Bromsgrove DC. The SoS agreed with the Inspector and
Bromsgrove and rejected it.
Park and ride in green belt wins government backing
Commuter parking refused at green belt station
refused a 150 space car park adjacent to a Kent railway station. More
informatiuon was required on need, pricing policy and alternatives in order to
prove very special circumstances for building in the green belt. Although
initially it had much to recommend it, the Inspector thought it would suck
commuters in from a long way off, thereby increasing car journeys. Tonbridge &
Malling DC 7 March 2001 -
Football ground park park not suitable for 'park and ride'
Bishop Stortford Football Club were refused the extension and use of their car park as a park and ride facility. Permission for an extra 201 car spaces was approved subject to the times of use. The club wanted to use 187 spaces for park and ride with a bus service 6 days a week serving the town centre. The Inspector found that there had not been a proper survey of need, and its use for the football club, on Saturday afternoon, co-incided with a peak 'park and ride' period. The Inspector thoight there was a possible use for airport parking for Stansted since the appellant eferred to 24 hour 7 day security. He decided the extra parking and continuous parking would harm the green belt. East Herts DC. 11 Januray 2001. Ref - APP/J1915/A/00/1050235.
Park & Ride scheme rejected in green belt
Council wanted a park&ride scheme with 1,000 car spoaces, 4,000 sqm
business floorspace with 130 car spaces on green belt land in open countryside
some 6 km north of Oxford. An employment development on adjoining land would
include a 26m high grain silo. The Inspector agreed that the park& ride was
in accord with national and local transport policies, but the traffic generated
would harm road and environmental conditions in a nearby settlement. It was
inappropriate in the green belt, reducing openness, consolidate existing
sporadic development and lead to a coalescence between Oxford and the adjacent
settlement. The was no evidence that it would decrease car mileage outside the
city. The benefits of a park&ride and an office scheme were outweighed by
the clear harm.
Additional car parking approved in green belt to improve highway safety.
9 extra car parking spaces were approved at a BT telephone engineering centre in green belt near York. Initially the Inspector said it was inappropriate because the car parking would be separated from the centre by a large fence, thereby encroaching on the green belt. However he agreed that the very special circumstances were improved road safety and reduced on-street parking. ref - APP/C2741/A/00/1044904 - hearing 9 Oct 2000.