Town Planner Pro
Free trial
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed11 October 20243338381

Whitehouse Building, Northwood Road, Hillingdon, Harefield, UB9 6PT

Planning appeal 3338381 at Whitehouse Building, Northwood Road, Hillingdon, Harefield, UB9 6PT (London Borough of Hillingdon) was dismissed on 11 October 2024 by Inspector De Freitas Terceiro P, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies, including the effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

the demolition of existing structures and erection of a replacement single-storey bungalow, hardstanding, access track and associated hard and soft landscaping

Authority
London Borough of Hillingdon
Appeal type
minor · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
residential · Minor Dwellings
Inspector
De Freitas Terceiro P
Postcode
UB9 6PT

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies, including the effect on the openness of the Green Belt
  • whether the proposal would be in a suitable location for housing, having regard to access to services, facilities and infrastructure
  • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including its effect on trees
  • the effect of the proposed development on ecology
  • 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 proposal

What decided it

The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt with substantial harm to openness and no very special circumstances to justify it, as the identified benefits and fallback position carry insufficient weight to overcome the fundamental Green Belt harm.

The substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, combined with harm to character and appearance and failure to meet accessibility requirements, was not clearly outweighed by the limited weight attributed to the extant permission fallback, personal circumstances, housing supply contribution, and other benefits; very special circumstances do not exist.

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies
Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021Policy EM2 of the Council's Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies 2012Policy DMEI4 of the Council's Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies 2020Policy DMT1 of the Council's Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies 2020Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021Policy D4 of the London Plan 2021Policy G7 of the London Plan 2021Policy BE1 of the Council's Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies 2012Policy DMHB11 of the Council's Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies 2020Policy DMHB12 of the Council's Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies 2020Policy DMHB14 of the Council's Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies 2020Policy D1 of the London Plan 2021Policy G6 of the London Plan 2021Policy DMEI7 of the Council's Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies 2020Policy T3 of the London Plan 2021
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 11Paragraph 143Paragraph 154

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 applied

The 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.

Appeals plan, £15 a month

With an account

What an account adds to this decision

60 other decided appeals within two kilometres of this site. In the app every dot opens its decision, and its letter wherever one was published, and you can draw your own site to see what has been decided around it.AllowedDismissedSplitThis decision
An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter
Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.
Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app
Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.
Start your free trial

More decisions in London Borough of Hillingdon

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2024

  1. Dismissed15 September 20266010520
    Grove Farm, Rickmansworth Road, Harefield, UB9 6JY
  2. Notice varied and upheld29 July 20253363007
    Land on the West Side of High Street, Harlington, Hayes, UB3 5DW
  3. Dismissed20 June 20253355798
    Khayri House, 70 Clifton Gardens, Uxbridge, Hillingdon, UB10 0EZ
  4. Allowed21 February 20253341154
    Chandigrah Summerhouse Lane, Harefield, Uxbridge, UB9 6HS
  5. Dismissed1 November 20243345366
    Grass Verge Adjacent To 19 Rutters Close, West Drayton, UB7 9AL

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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every appeal around it, with its letter to read and the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out.