Planning appeal decision
Glanmire Farm, Rushett Lane, Epsom, KT18 7TR
Planning appeal 3300875 at Glanmire Farm, Rushett Lane, Epsom, KT18 7TR (Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames) was allowed on 21 December 2022 by Inspector Nicholls H, following a hearing. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and whether it would affect openness.
demolition of existing stables and barn and erection of a single dwelling and replacement stables together with associated parking and landscaping
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Nicholls H
- Postcode
- KT18 7TR
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and whether it would affect openness
- the effects of the proposal on employment opportunities
- whether the proposal would be located so as to minimise the dependency on private vehicles
- whether the proposal would represent an efficient use of land, having regard to the scale of the dwelling/s
- if relevant, 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 determining factor was the differential impact of each scheme on the openness of the Green Belt: Appeal A caused no greater impact than the existing development (permitted under paragraph 149(g)), while Appeal B did, making it inappropriate development for which no very special circumstances existed.
For Appeal A, under the tilted balance the benefits of housing delivery, sustainable design, economic activity and minor biodiversity gains were not significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the adverse impacts, so the appeal was allowed; for Appeal B, the same benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm to Green Belt openness and the parking overprovision so as to amount to very special circumstances, so the appeal was dismissed.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Core Strategy Policy DM5Policy G2 (London Plan)Policy DM4Policy DM17Policy DM9Policy T6Policy T6.1Policy D6
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 149Paragraph 150Paragraph 11Paragraph 80
- Judgments
- Turner v SSCLG & East Dorset Council [2016] EWCA Civ 466; Braintree District Council v SoS CLG & Ors [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 Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2022
- Dismissed7 October 2026601191211 Kingsdowne Road, Surbiton, KT6 6JZ
- Dismissed29 September 2026600998856 Burlington Road, New Malden, KT3 4NU
- Dismissed25 September 2026600907674 - 76 Coombe Road, New Malden, KT3 4QU
- Allowed11 August 20266010924271 Malden Road, New Malden, KT3 6AH
- Dismissed3 August 20266007703Town End Pier, 68 High Street, Kingston Upon Thames, KT1 1HN
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.
®