Appeals

London Green Belt Council

Green Belt appeal decisions

Home

About LGBC

Updated 11 May 2007, this page, and linked pages, contains summarises of appeal decisions arising from refusal of planning consent. Copies of appeal decision letters are available at www.Planning Reource.co,uk/dcs for a fee.

The latest appeal decisions are listed below. Click on the appropriate subject heading below for a list of relevant appeal decisions from early 2000.

The category decision is ours, and you may disagree! Some cases are hard to categorise, so it may be worth checking out the others.

A CPRE website www.planninghelp.org.uk will help you understand the planning process and what to do if an appeal has been made. It is in plain English!

'SoS' = Secretary of State. 'DPM' and ODPM = Office of) Deputy Prime Minister. 'DETR' & 'DLTR' Are now ‘DCLG’ = Dep’t for Communities and Local Government. ‘EO’= Enforcement Order. GPDR = General Permitted Development Rights. ‘VSC’ = very special circumstances

LATEST ITEMS

The date quoted is when the it appeared in Planning magazine. All of the following items have been copied onto the 'subject' pages listed above to keep those pages up to date.

Items added 18 April 2007

Gypsies get temp approval in Herts GB. 8 families have been allowed to occupy a site until the end of 2009 following a High Court verdict in 2004 quashing a previous Ministerial decision. Although the SoS decided it undermined the openness she did

Items added 12 April 2007

Non-inert waste landfill approved at Gloucs GB. The operational landfill site was constrained by areas that could not be land filled due to pipe works causing troughs. The pipes would be diverted to the edge of the site allowing the import of 500,000 m2 of waste to fill the voids. The permitted height of the landfill would increase by 2m to ensure an acceptably shallow profile. The removal of troughs in this floodplain created a discontinuity of the area’s character, but lead to significant benefits to integrating it with the surrounding landscape. These very special circumstances justified approval. DCS ref OT 100-044-941. 3.11.06

15m mobile phone mast refused in Co. Durham GB. The slim-line mast would be adjacent to a roundabout and the mast would project well above the lighting columns. The antenna would damage the character despite being placed in a shroud. The need for national coverage and lack of other available sites they were insufficient to justify approval. Partial costs were awarded because the council had refused on highway safety grounds without justification or support by Highways, and against the officer’s advice. DCS ref OT 100-045-013. 3.11.06

Car boot sales refused in Derby GB. It was proposed to hold 40 sales a year, well in excess of the 14 days permitted under General Permitted Development Order 1995. Farm diversity was insufficient reason to allow these sales on a remote site requiring car-borne shoppers made it unsustainable. DCS ref WR 100-044-948. 3.11.06

Real tennis court refused at Eton College in GB. The sizeable building would erode and intrude in the openness of the Met GB. The need for such a facility was not questioned by the Inspector but sports buildings had been resisted by many educational establishments in the GB. The college had searched for several years but found no alternative site, and the site would be sustainable being close to the college. The Inspector was concerned at the narrowness of the GB so it was important not to set a precedent. It would materially consolidate sporadic built development in the countryside. Although the court would be used by the community and contribute to national curriculum physical education needs , and was supported by Sport England and the Tennis and Racquets Association, these were insufficient. DCS ref OT 100-044-972. 3.11.06

Colliery regeneration refused in S Yorks GB. Most of the 4.6ha site was open having previously been used for coal stockpiling. 1ha would be used for employment and the rest for housing. It would restore the damaged and derelict land and help with local housing needs. The Inspector decided the brown filed nature of the land had no bearing and there were no overriding need to sanction the release of additional housing land nor pressure for employment. The community and environmental benefits were insufficient to justify the scheme. DCS ref OT-100-045-081. 10.11.06

Barn allowed in Herts GB. The barn would be sited 24m from other farm buildings which were adjacent to a Grade 11 listed farmhouse. In between would be a concrete apron for vehicles to move. A second scheme was refused which would have sited the barn only 8m from the other barns with the apron on the other side of the barn making the vehicles highly visible. The setting of the farmhouse was also important. DCS ref OT-100-045-102. 10.11.06

Polytunnels need planning permission. The High Court gave this ruling. Hall Hunter Partnership, owners of Tuesley Farm, near Godalming, Surrey in the Met Green Belt. In December 2005 a Planning Inspector ruled that these tunnels were ‘development’ requiring planning permission. The appellant argued it was an agricultural use of the land and therefore a permitted use, and that it was not a permanent building. The Court upheld the Inspector’s decision.

Nursing & residential care home extension refused in Bucks GB. The wing would accommodate 40 people aged 18 to 64 with physical disabilities. It was argued there was a clear need for the additional facilities and a free-standing unit was not economically viable. It would release extra beds in the main building for frail elderly and those with dementia. The Inspector decided it would reduce the openness requiring very special circumstances. There were no local or national targets for specialist care and no details had been provided of local numbers needing this care. The assessment of alternative locations had not been sufficienlty thorough. DCS OT 100-045-516. 8.12.06

Medical health facility allowed in Lancs GB. A former nurses training centre was allowed to have a change of use and extension. It would secure the long-term use of the building which was under-used and neglected in appearance. Very special circumstances were a deficiency in existing facilities and it was sustainable due to good local public transport. It would only add 7% to floorspace, with an enlarged car park. DCS ref WR 100-045-660. 8.12.06

Equestrian facilities allowed in Lancs GB. It would provide an attractive recreational facility in a countryside setting the Inspector said. Inert waste would be imported to create landforms including a showground, stables and a cross-country track for horses. The council argued the landfill was incompatible with GB policy but the Inspector disagreed since it would have to go into a landfill site. The effect on openness was neutral and would diversify the farm enterprise. The high quality facilities would serve a large urban area. DCS ref OT 100-045-515. 8.12.06

13.7m mobile phone tower allowed in Surrey GB. The appellant could find no alternative sites outside the GB area to comply with PPG8 para 65, since the whole area was designated GB. 14 alternative sites had been examined and the council did not dispute the reasons for their rejection. The only other possible site was lower so it would need a higher mast. DCS ref WR 100-045-341. 8.12.06

Waste tipping at former opencast coal site refused at Manchester GB. The unused and degraded 60ha site was in open countryside west of the M6 motorway. Coal extraction ceased in 2000 and the operator went into receivership before being able to restore the site. If not used for landfill it would remain derelict. The Inspector said it was inappropriate because the pressing need to restore the site was insufficient by itself, though she recognised the benefit of the employment, waste management and restoration. DCS ref OT 100-045-025. 17.11.06

Homes refused at Beds GB lime works. The 4ha former chalk quarry was now an active lime hydrating plant, The proposals were to demolish all buildings and erect 40 homes. The appellant claimed it would enhance the visual amenity and increase openness by removing the buildings. While agreeing these points, the Inspector decided the buildings had become part of the landscape and a reminder of the past chalk quarrying. Housing would introduce an incongruous suburban feature. To justify housing as more attractive could be repeated across the countryside and was not a very special circumstance. There were significant benefits from the offer to restore the kilns and manage the adjacent wildlife site, but the site was relatively unsustainable being largely car depend. DCS OT100-045-374. 1.12.06

Care home refused in Bucks GB. The existing care home did not meet government guidelines for room size and were few were en-suite, and had a poor layout and recreational area. It was unlikely to be graded excellent and could be forced to close. Alternatives schemes were submitted to demolish and build either a 68 or 51 bedroom home, both designs being 2 storey with rooms in the roof space and basement. The Inspector agreed that changes to the existing building would reduce the number of residents affecting staffing and viability, but these had limited weight. Although there was an increasing need for care places they did not have to be provided in the green belt. DCS OT100-045-406. 1.12.06

Gypsies get temporary permission in Beds GB. Retrospective permission for 5 years was given due to personal circumstances for 12 caravans housing 4 families. 3 previous appeals for gypsy caravans had been refused and the caravans introduced an incongruous urbanised appearance. They were out of scale to the nearby 20-dwelling hamlet. However there was a shortage of such sites in the district and refusal would have forced the families to return to being nomads. Two occupants had serious health problems and two children attended the local school. The 5-year permission was granted to allow the council to identify additional gypsy sites in the District Plan. The SoS agreed it complied with Circular 01/2006. It was immaterial whether or not this site would be chosen as a permanent site in the Plan. It was the right balance between the appellants needs and human rights and the need to protect the countryside and local residents amenity. DCS OT100-045-369. 1.12.06

Car boot site refused in Kent GB. Retrospective approval was refused on appeal for this 2.5ha site, as undermining the character of the area. Council photos proved the twice-weekly event attracted hundreds of cars which overflowed the car parking area onto an adjacent field. The appellant claimed an average of 50/75 pitches and 350 cars on a well-screened site and that it was intermittent. The Inspector noted the sales were advertised in local papers attracting a large number of cars and half the filed was the car park. This urbanised use was inappropriate and the large number of cars ran counter to sustainable development. DCS OT100-045-413. 1.12.06

====================================================================================================================

For items appeal decisions before this date, please refer to the appropriate subject heading at the top of this page.

Back to top

Back to home page.

Latest items,	1938 Act land,	.Agriculture
Business premises	Caravans (other than gypsies)	Car parks..
.Cemeteries	Gypsies & show people	Hotels & restaurants
Housing (conversions).	Housing new (green field)	Housing new (brown field)
Housing (other)		Human Rights Act 1998
Leisure (not stables & riding schools)	Mobile phone masts	.Stables & riding schools
Power	Quarries & land fill	Transport