®Planning appeal decision
Riverbank The Creek, SUNBURY-ON-THAMES, TW16 6BY
Without planning permission the unlawful development of a new dwelling house, garage, boathouse, associated terracing and planters, steps, walls, pillars and hardstanding”
- Authority
- Spelthorne Borough Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Householder developments
- Inspector
- Blackwell J
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the development represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies, including its effect on openness (where relevant)
- the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area
- the effect of the development on flood risk
What decided it
Unresolved deficiencies in the Flood Risk Assessment meant flood risk harm from the development in flood zone 3b could not be ruled out, causing the deemed planning application to fail.
The development was found acceptable in Green Belt and character/appearance terms, but the inability to rule out flood risk harm meant it conflicted with the development plan as a whole, with no other considerations outweighing this conflict.
Framework references: 154, 155
Plan policies cited: Policy GB1, Policy EN1, Policy LO1, Policy SP7, Policy CC1
Judgments cited: F G Whitley & Sons v Secretary of State for Wales & Clwyd CC [1990] JPL 678; [1992] JPL 856; R (on the application of Hart Aggregates Ltd) v Hartlepool Borough Council [2005] EWHC 840 (Admin); The Welsh Ministers v Barrett [2023] EWHC 2503 (Admin); Commercial Land Ltd v The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2002] EWHC 1264 (Admin); [2003] JPL 358; Hussain v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWHC 687 (Admin); Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Parks Authority [2022] UKSC 30; John Southwood v Buckinghamshire Council & Stephen Green [2024] EWHC 71 (Admin); Gabbitas v SSE & Newham BC [1985] JPL 630; Sage v SSETR and Maidstone BC [2003] UKHL 22
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.