Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Notice upheld18 July 20233280591

Land at Chingford Mill Pumping Station, 35 Lower Hall Lane, Chingford, E4 8AG

Planning appeal 3280591 at Land at Chingford Mill Pumping Station, 35 Lower Hall Lane, Chingford, E4 8AG (Waltham Forest London Borough Council) was dismissed on 18 July 2023 by Inspector Harbottle M, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the conversion of the PS to self-contained flats and the conversion of the TH into a self-contained dwelling constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt ("the GB").

Without planning permission: (1) material change of use of the Pumping Station to self-contained flats; (2) material change of use of the Turbine House to a self-contained dwelling; (3) demolition of an existing dwelling and erection of 5 two storey dwellings

Appeal type
major · Enforcement Notice
Procedure
Inquiry
Development
residential · Minor Dwellings
Inspector
Harbottle M
Postcode
E4 8JG

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • Whether the conversion of the PS to self-contained flats and the conversion of the TH into a self-contained dwelling constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt ("the GB")
  • Whether the demolition of an existing dwelling and erection of 5 two-storey dwellings constitutes inappropriate development in the GB
  • The effect on the openness and purposes of including land in the GB
  • The effects on heritage assets
  • Flood risk
  • The effects on the site's contribution to recreation
  • The effects on air quality
  • The effects on greenhouse gas emissions
  • The need for and provision of affordable housing, having regard to the financial viability of the development
  • If any part of the DPA constitutes inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal

What decided it

The harm to the openness and purposes of the Green Belt from the inappropriate development was not clearly outweighed by other considerations, so very special circumstances were not demonstrated.

the harm to the Green Belt, the less than substantial harm to heritage assets, and other identified harms were not, individually or cumulatively, clearly outweighed by other considerations including human rights, so the balance tipped against granting permission

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies
Policy GG2Policy CS5Policy DM12Policy HC1Policy CS12Policy DM28Policy SI12Policy CS4Policy CS13Policy DM34Policy SI1Policy SI2Policy H4Policy CS2Policy DM3
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 34Paragraph 58Paragraph 130Paragraph 13
Judgments
Ioannou v SSCLG & Enfield LBC [2014] EWCA Civ 1432; Bhandal v SSHCLG & Bromsgrove DC [2020] EWHC 2724 (Admin); [2021] JPL 611; Arnold v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 1197 (Admin), [2017] EWCA Civ 231; [2017] JPL 923

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 applied

The 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

200 other decided appeals within two kilometres of this site. In the app every dot opens its decision, and its letter wherever one was published, and you can draw your own site to see what has been decided around it.AllowedDismissedSplitThis decision
An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter
Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.
Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app
Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.
Start your free trial

More decisions in Waltham Forest London Borough Council

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2023

  1. Dismissed28 September 20266011324
    L/A to 2 Claremont Road, London, E17 5RJ
  2. Dismissed18 September 20266011375
    Land to R/O 34-40 Hillcrest Road, Walthamstow, E17 4AP
  3. Allowed21 July 20266006927
    8 Mulberry Close, Chingford, London, E4 8BS
  4. Allowed16 July 20266007500
    38 Second Avenue, Walthamstow, London, E17 9QH
  5. Dismissed22 May 20266003136
    52 Withy Mead, Chingford, Waltham Forest, E4 6JZ

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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every appeal around it, with its letter to read and the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out.