®Planning appeal decision
157 Pizien Well Road, Wateringbury, Maidstone, Kent, ME18 5HX
Planning appeal 3304085 at 157 Pizien Well Road, Wateringbury, Maidstone, Kent, ME18 5HX (Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council) was allowed in part (a split decision) on 12 June 2025 by Inspector Jones R, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the development would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework, relevant development plan policies, the effect on openness and the purposes of the Green Belt.
Application for Change of Use from Agricultural to Residential Curtilage. Full details enclosed within the attached Planning Statement. The application does not include any change to the appearance of the land and is solely to allow for its u se as residential curtilage
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Change of use
- Inspector
- Jones R
- Postcode
- ME18 5HX
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the development would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework, relevant development plan policies, the effect on openness and the purposes of the Green Belt
- if the development is inappropriate, 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 development
What decided it
The development amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt that results in harm to openness and conflicts with the purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and this harm is not clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to constitute very special circumstances.
The substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and loss of openness was not clearly outweighed by other considerations; the appellant's personal circumstances, lack of objections from the Parish Council, and support from neighbours and the local ward councillor do not constitute very special circumstances.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Core Strategy Policy CP3
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 153Paragraph 154Paragraph 155Paragraph 143Paragraph 110Paragraph 115
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 Tonbridge and Malling
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025
- Dismissed8 July 20266007841Land Adjoining Hazeldene, Pilgrims Way, Trottiscliffe, West Malling, ME19 5EW
- Dismissed18 June 20266004481Elpatos, Pilgrims Way, West Malling, ME19 5EP
- Notice varied and upheld10 April 202633413804 Ruby Walk, Kings Hill, West Malling, Kent, ME19 4JT
- Dismissed24 March 20263374700Trench Farmhouse, Coldharbour Lane, Hildenborough, Tonbridge, TN11 9LE
- Dismissed3 March 20266002415The Lodge, 2 Yaldham Manor Drive, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN15 6FA
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.