The inspector agreed that a survey carried out for the appellant showed that the site's nature conservation interest was limited. He also noted acceptance by both parties that there was surplus open space in the locality.
While acknowledging that the site had been developed in the past, he found that the overwhelming impression created by it was of scrub, grassland and trees.
On that basis, the inspector decided that the site was not previously developed land for the purposes of PPG3 on housing. He reasoned that in the context of a more than adequate supply of previously developed sites in the city, there was no justification for overriding PPG3's presumption against greenfield development.
DCS No: 31902342; Inspector: Mike Hetherington; Inquiry.