Planning appeal decision
Land Adjacent to 24 and 25 Dale View , Headley, Epsom, Surrey KT186EH, KT18 6EH
Two new dwellings and associated uses
- Authority
- Mole Valley District Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Szymanski D
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt
- the effect of the proposal upon the openness of the Green Belt
- the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area
- the effect of the proposal upon non-designated heritage assets (NDHAs) of archaeological interest
- whether or not the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for the future occupiers, with particular reference to daylight and outlook
- the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No 24 Dale View, with particular reference to noise and disturbance
- if the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, and if so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal
What decided it
The proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt causing significant harm to openness, and the housing benefits do not clearly outweigh this substantial harm and other identified harms to justify very special circumstances.
The significant weight given to housing delivery benefits was outweighed by the substantial weight given to harm to the Green Belt (inappropriateness and loss of openness), harm to character and appearance, harm to living conditions of future occupiers, and conflict with heritage asset policies; the tilted balance did not apply because Green Belt protection policies provide a clear reason for refusal.
Framework references: 11, 48, 78, 79, 80, 105, 119, 124, 130, 137, 138, 147, 148, 149, 150, 194, 203
Plan policies cited: Policy CS1, Policy CS2, Policy CS14, Policy CS18, Policy ENV22, Policy ENV23, Policy ENV24, Policy ENV32, Policy MOV2, Policy MOV5, Policy 49
Judgments cited: Wood v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 683 (Admin); R (Tate) v Northumberland County Council [2018] EWCA Civ 1519
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.
®