The site was a disused horticultural nursery with a number of glasshouses and polytunnels, but was agreed to be in a composite use (and therefore previously developed land) as it also contained a former barn that had been partially converted into a residential dwelling. It was also agreed that both schemes would make a contribution to meeting local affordable housing needs through a financial contribution in the S106 agreements that had been subject to viability testing.  

As a consequence, the threshold to be applied was whether the developments would result in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.  The Inspector found that there was no doubt that the proposals would give rise to some degree of change through the increase in mass, permanence and solidity of built structures on site.  The visual impact would be restricted to a short section of the main road.  Taking this together, the developments would have a ‘modestly erosive’ effect on the openness of the Green Belt.  The effect would not, however, be substantial, such that the development met the exception in para 154(g).

Daisy Noble acted for the successful Appellant, instructed by David Bedford of DHA Planning.