®Planning appeal decision
155 Pizien Well Road, Wateringbury, Maidstone, Kent, ME18 5HX
Planning appeal 3306028 at 155 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.
We wish to change use of agricultural land to residential garden use
- 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 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.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Core Strategy Policy CP3
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 153Paragraph 154Paragraph 155Paragraph 143Paragraph 110Paragraph 115
- Judgments
- Murfitt v SSE & East Cambridgeshire DC [1980] JPL 598; Somak Travel v SSE & Brent LBC [1987] JPL 630
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.