®Planning appeal decision
Land Known As The Puffing Field Adjoining Brackenhurst, Windmill Hill , Chipperfield, WD4 9DG
Planning appeal 3284630 at Land Known As The Puffing Field Adjoining Brackenhurst, Windmill Hill , Chipperfield, WD4 9DG (Three Rivers District Council) was dismissed on 23 September 2022 by Inspector Aqbal M, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies.
for the erection of a self-build dwelling and associated works
- Authority
- Three Rivers District Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Aqbal M
- Postcode
- WD4 9DG
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies
- The effect on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt
- Whether or not the proposal necessitates a requirement for affordable housing, and if so, whether the proposal makes appropriate provision for this
- Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal
What decided it
The proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt which would cause harm to openness and the purposes of the Green Belt, and the social and economic benefits of a single dwelling do not clearly outweigh this harm to constitute very special circumstances.
The social, economic and environmental benefits of delivering a new dwelling and modest biodiversity gains do not clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and harm to openness and countryside character, and very special circumstances do not exist.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy CP11Policy CP4Policy DM2
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 79Paragraph 137Paragraph 147Paragraph 149
- Judgments
- Bramshill v SSHCLG [2021] EWCA Civ 320; Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2018] EWCA Civ 610
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 Three Rivers
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2022
- Allowed24 September 20266010198Rusper, Nottingham Road, Heronsgate, WD3 5DN
- Dismissed9 September 20266011803126 Toms Lane, Kings Langley, WD4 8NR
- Dismissed12 August 20266006827Land Adjacent to Sarratt Lane, Loudwater, WD3 4AS
- Dismissed21 July 20266003684156 the Drive, Rickmansworth, WD34DH
- Dismissed30 June 20266004957Land Adjoining Westwood End, Bucks Hill, Kings Langley, WD4 9AS
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.