Planning appeal decision
The Studio, Lee Priory, Littlebourne, CT3 1UR
Planning appeal 3292224 at The Studio, Lee Priory, Littlebourne, CT3 1UR (Canterbury City Council) was dismissed on 1 September 2023 by Inspector Pattison B, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the site is a suitable location for the proposal having regard to local and national planning policy, and the accessibility of the site to services, employment opportunities and facilities.
conversion of existing ancillary residential outbuildings, with two single storey link extensions, to form a single dwellinghouse
- Authority
- Canterbury City Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Pattison B
- Postcode
- CT3 1UR
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the site is a suitable location for the proposal having regard to local and national planning policy, and the accessibility of the site to services, employment opportunities and facilities
- The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the local area bearing in mind the special attention that should be paid to the desirability of preserving the setting of the nearby Grade II listed building, Lee House, and the extent to which it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Lee Priory and Garrington Conservation Area
What decided it
The less than substantial harm to the setting of the Grade II listed building and the character and appearance of the conservation area, combined with the site's unsuitability due to poor accessibility to services and location in open countryside, outweighs the modest public benefits of housing supply and efficient land use.
The modest public benefits of housing supply, efficient use of the site, temporary construction employment, and future resident expenditure were outweighed by the less than substantial harm to the heritage assets and the site's unsuitability in terms of location and accessibility, with great weight given to conservation of the designated heritage assets.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy SP4Policy HD4Policy SP1Policy DBE3Policy HE1Policy HE4Policy HE6
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 80Paragraph 199Paragraph 200Paragraph 11
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 Canterbury City Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2023
- Dismissed28 September 20266008107Dane Cottage, Hoggs Lane, Petham, CT4 5PJ
- Dismissed28 September 20266008105Dane Cottage, Hogg Lane, Petham, CT4 5PJ
- Allowed24 September 2026601061482 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1EL
- Allowed18 September 20266009081Ground Floor, 2 Douglas Road, Herne Bay, CT6 6AE
- Dismissed11 August 2026600962869 Joy Lane, Whitstable, CT5 4DD
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.
®