Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed4 April 20243323215

Meadow Cottage School Lane, Higham, ROCHESTER, ME3 7JG

a first-floor rear extension

Authority
Gravesham Borough Council
Appeal type
householder · Householder (HAS)
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
residential · Householder developments
Inspector
Chukwujekwu I

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • whether the conditions in dispute are necessary and reasonable (Appeal A)
  • whether the proposal is inappropriate development for the purposes of development plan policy and the Framework (Appeal B)
  • the effect of the development on openness of the Green Belt (Appeal B)
  • the effect of the development upon landscape character and the appearance of the host dwelling (Appeal B)
  • if the development is inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to very special circumstances necessary to justify the development (Appeal B)

What decided it

Appeal A was allowed because conditions 6 and 7 failed to comply with Framework paragraph 56 requirements for necessity and reasonableness, being duplicative and overly restrictive given the existing removal of permitted development rights; Appeal B was dismissed because the cumulative extensions would constitute disproportionate and inappropriate development in the Green Belt with no very special circumstances to justify it.

Framework references: 11, 56, 142, 143, 154, 155

Plan policies cited: Policy C13, Policy CS02, Policy CS12, Policy CS19

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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.