Planning appeal decision
Land at Fairways, Southend Road, London, E4 8TA
Planning appeal 3225886 at Land at Fairways, Southend Road, London, E4 8TA (Waltham Forest London Borough Council) was allowed in part (a split decision) on 17 December 2021 by Inspector Madge M, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the development is inappropriate development in the Metropolitan Green Belt having regard to the revised Framework and any relevant development plan policies.
Material change of use of land to Class A3 restaurant use with outdoor customer seating, storage structures and associated operational development (extensions, dormer/roof alterations, glazing, pergola, tented enclosures, railings and gates) at a site in the Metropolitan Green Belt
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- retail · Change of use
- Inspector
- Madge M
- Postcode
- E4 8TA
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the development is inappropriate development in the Metropolitan Green Belt having regard to the revised Framework and any relevant development plan policies.
- The effect on the openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt.
- The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
- If the development constitutes inappropriate development, will the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harms, be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
What decided it
The severability of the restaurant use and roof alterations from the disproportionate ground floor extensions, combined with the fallback position and the Council's concession, allowed very special circumstances to be found for part but not all of the development.
The great weight given to the fallback position and roof alterations, together with the significant weight given to the Council's concession on the restaurant use, amounted to very special circumstances justifying permission for the restaurant use and roof alterations, but these considerations did not clearly outweigh the substantial harm from inappropriateness and loss of openness caused by the ground floor extensions and storage structures, which were refused.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- GG2G2S5E10HC5CS11
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 149Paragraph 150
- Judgments
- Miller-Mead v MHLG [1963]2 QB 196(CA); Sarodia v Redbridge LBC [2017] EWHC 2347 (Admin); The Queen on the Application of Michael Geoffrey Lynes and Sadie Lynes v West Berkshire District Council [2002] EWHC 1828 admin; Koumis v SSCLG [2014] EWCA Civ 1723; Burdle v SSE[1972] 1 WLR 1207 (Div Court); Cardiff Rating Authority v Guest Keens [1949] 1 KB 385; RSBS Developments Ltd v SSHCLG & Brent [2020] EWHC 3077; Prengate Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1973] 25 P & CR 311
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in Waltham Forest London Borough Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2021
- Notice varied and upheld27 April 2026334526366 Huxley Road, London, E10 5QU
- Notice varied and upheld20 April 2026334789679 Rosebank Road (Unit 79), London, E17 8NH
- Dismissed15 December 2025335340533 Barclay Road, Leytonstone, London, E11 3DQ
- Notice upheld4 November 20253368239Basement & Ground Floor , 267 High Road , Leyton, London, E10 5QN
- Notice varied and upheld15 October 20253348603170 Station Road, Chingford, E4 6AN
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®