Planning appeal decision
Land Rear of Kenwood Green Lane, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2DS
the creation of 2 additional residential pitches for Gypsy/Travellers at an existing Gypsy/Traveller caravan site, each with 1 static caravan, 1 touring caravan and a brick built day room, and retrospective permission for the erection of a retaining wall together with land levelling engineering works
- Authority
- Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- caravan-gypsy · Minor traveller and caravan pitches
- Inspector
- Nicholls H
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the engineering works and operational development, or the proposed use of the site to provide two residential pitches amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and if so, the effects on the openness of the Green Belt
- whether the appeal site is safe for human habitation with particular regard to land contamination and whether there would be any related effects on surface water quality
- whether the site is, or could be made structurally safe for its intended purpose
- the effects of the development on the landscape character and visual quality of the area
- its effects on the biodiversity value of the site and surrounding area, including the Bonesgate Stream Site of Nature Conservation (the SINC)
- whether the location of the appeal site accords with the development plan in terms of access to facilities and minimising dependency on private vehicles
- the general need for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation in the area and the personal circumstances of the appellants and their needs for accommodation
- if relevant, 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 development
What decided it
The Green Belt harm from inappropriate development, compounded by intentional unauthorised development and unresolved safety concerns, was not clearly outweighed by the need for Traveller pitches and the appellants' personal circumstances, so very special circumstances were not established.
The harms of inappropriate development and loss of openness in the Green Belt, land contamination, structural instability, landscape and visual harm, potential SINC harm and intentional unauthorised development were not clearly outweighed by the Traveller pitch shortfall and the appellants' personal circumstances, so the appeal was dismissed.
Framework references: 11, 110, 115, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 187, 196
Plan policies cited: Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021, Policy DM5 of the Kingston Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2012), Core Strategy Policy DM1, Core Strategy Policy DM4, policy DM10 of the Core Strategy, Policy G6 of the London Plan, Policies DM4 and DM6 of the Core Strategy
Judgments cited: Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [1982]; Holborn Studios Ltd v Hackney LBC [2017] EWHC 2823; AZ v SSCLG and South Gloucester [2012] EWCA 3660 (Admin); Chapman v UK (2001) ECHR 43; Collins v SSCLG and Fylde BC [2013] EWCA Civ 1193; Stevens v SSCLG and Guildford BC [2013] EWHC 792 (Admin)
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.
®