Page 145 - Archive in reverse date order

C. EXTRACTS FROM THE FINDINGS OF PREVIOUS PUBLIC INQUIRIES.

1.1 Little Acre, Bunkers Hill : Findings of Inspector in 2005
(APP/D5120/C/04/1147311)

“...I accept that the visual impact of the development in views from Bunkers Hill could
possibly be mitigated by tree planting and/or landscape works but even if the development
were screened from public view it would remain significant inappropriate development in
the Green Belt and seriously reduce the openness of the area” (para 29)

“There is no dispute that the unauthorised development is inappropriate and therefore
harmful to the Green Belt. I have also identified further harm through the loss of openness
and the adverse effect of the development on the character and appearance of an area
defined as heritage land...Against this harm I have balanced the other matters raised in
support of the appellant's case” (para 46)

“This is a particularly sensitive location where Green Belt designation is overlaid by
additional layers of protection...My conclusion is that the extent of environmental harm and
conflict with policy caused by this unauthorised development is considerable. The appellant
[Mr Button] has put forward a number of considerations that are material but I do not
consider that, on balance, they amount to very special circumstances that outweigh the harm
I have identified...” (para 48)

“Two years was suggested as a reasonable period to allow the Council to carry out a needs
assessment and for suitable sites to be identified. Whilst being aware of the personal
implications of complying with the notice and the shortcomings on Council's part I must
take into account the serious environmental harm...and conflict with policies for the
protection of the Green Belt and other interests. In my view a 2 year period for compliance
(or alternatively a temporary planning permissions for this period) would perpetuate that
harm to an unacceptable extent...” (para 53)

“I have considered the human rights implications...and recognise the potentially serious
effect my decision may have on the appellant and his family in terms of interference with
their home and family life. However, this must be weighed against the wider public
interest” (para 55)

“For the reasons given above I have found that the unauthorised development is harmful to
the character and appearance of the area and the need to protect the Green Belt...This harm
is not outweighed by other material considerations...On balance I consider that extending
the period for compliance and dismissing the appeal would not have a disproportionate
effect on Mr Button...” (para 56)

Note: The Inspector recognised that:-

− the location was “particularly sensitive”
− the development was harmful, and that extending the period for compliance would
perpetuate this harm unacceptably
− screening it from public view would not alter this