Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed22 August 20253356595

Mooring Skylark/ Msdehoop, Old Wharf River Thames, West Molesey, Surrey, KY8 1QY

Planning appeal 3356595 at Mooring Skylark/ Msdehoop, Old Wharf River Thames, West Molesey, Surrey, KY8 1QY (Elmbridge Borough Council) was dismissed on 22 August 2025 by Inspector Bayliss G, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether or not the development would comply with national planning policy which seeks to steer new development away from areas that are at the highest risk of flooding.

a temporary period for retrospective application for a residential mooring of a houseboat known as Skylark/Ms De Hoop without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 2020/2061, dated 26 April 2022

Appeal type
minor · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
residential · Other minor developments
Inspector
Bayliss G
Postcode
KT8 1QY

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • Whether or not the development would comply with national planning policy which seeks to steer new development away from areas that are at the highest risk of flooding
  • Whether or not the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including its effect on openness, having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies
  • Whether or not the development would provide acceptable living conditions for existing and future occupants with regard to waste management
  • The effect of the development on protected species
  • Whether or not the development is in an acceptable location with regard to the development plan, including the character and appearance of the area
  • If inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development

What decided it

The substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and loss of openness, combined with unresolved flood risk concerns and inadequate waste management arrangements for permanent use, was not clearly outweighed by the moderate weight attributed to housing need and permanent moorings provision, particularly as the welfare of a child—the primary justification for the previous temporary consent—no longer applied.

The provision of one permanent dwelling and the unmet need for permanent residential moorings (moderate weight) did not clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and loss of openness, combined with significant harm from flood risk, ecology, waste management and character and appearance; the welfare of a child, which had been the decisive factor in the previous appeal, now carried only limited weight as the child no longer permanently resides on the boat.

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies
ECS Policy CS12ECS Policy CS15ECS Policy CS26EDMP Policy DM2EDMP Policy DM5EDMP Policy DM8EDMP Policy DM13EDMP Policy DM17EDMP Policy DM21EDMP Policy DM22
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 11Paragraph 61Paragraph 154Paragraph 155
Judgments
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames v SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin)

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.

With an account

What an account adds to this decision

231 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 Elmbridge Borough Council

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025

  1. Dismissed7 August 20266004985
    4, Felix Lane, Shepperton Surrey, TW17 8NJ
  2. Dismissed16 July 20266007665
    Whitewood, Redhill Road, Cobham, KT11 1EF
  3. Dismissed29 June 20266007101
    The Cottage, Byfleet Road, Cobham, KT111DS
  4. Dismissed4 June 20266006584
    Hillsway, Downside Common Road,, Downside, Cobham, KT11 3NP
  5. Dismissed9 March 20263356517
    Silvermere Golf Club, Redhill Road, Cobham, Surrey, KT11 1EF

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.