®Planning appeal decision
155 Pizien Well Road, Wateringbury, Maidstone, Kent, ME18 5HX
We wish to change use of agricultural land to residential garden use
- Authority
- Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Change of use
- Inspector
- Jones R
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 fails to meet criterion (b) of paragraph 155 of the Framework (demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed), and the substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness is not clearly outweighed by other considerations.
The substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and the loss of openness and conflict with Green Belt purposes were not clearly outweighed by other considerations; the lack of harm to character and appearance, living conditions and highway safety were neutral matters in the balance.
Framework references: 153, 154, 155, 143, 110, 115
Plan policies cited: Core Strategy Policy CP3
Judgments cited: Murfitt v SSE & East Cambridgeshire DC [1980] JPL 598; Somak Travel v SSE & Brent LBC [1987] JPL 630
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.