Planning appeal decision
3 Hooley Drive, Rayleigh, Essex, SS6 9RA
Planning appeal 3367308 at 3 Hooley Drive, Rayleigh, Essex, SS6 9RA (Rochford District Council) was dismissed on 19 September 2025 by Inspector Grierson E, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised National Planning Policy Framework and relevant development plan policies.
a replacement dwelling and garage
- Authority
- Rochford District Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Grierson E
- Postcode
- SS6 9RA
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised National Planning Policy Framework and relevant development plan policies
- the effect on the openness of the Green Belt
- whether the proposed development would harm the existing trees on the appeal site
- would the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal
What decided it
The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it would exceed the 25% floorspace increase threshold in Policy DM21, and the other considerations do not clearly outweigh this harm to justify very special circumstances.
The benefits of providing a modern, energy-efficient dwelling and improved living conditions between neighbours, afforded moderate weight, did not clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness; the presumption in favour of sustainable development was displaced by the strong reason for refusal provided by Green Belt policies.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy DM21Policy DM25
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 154Paragraph 153Paragraph 11
- Judgments
- Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC & others [2017] EWCA Civ 1314
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 appliedThe 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


More decisions in Rochford
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025
- Dismissed1 October 20266008122Milan Villa, Hyde Wood Lane , Canewdon, Rochford, SS4 3RR
- Notice varied and upheld2 September 20263372996Land at Limehouse Nursery (Also Known As 401 Eastwood Road), The Drive, Rayleigh, Essex, SS6 7LJ
- Allowed9 July 202660048639 College Gardens, Rochford, SS4 1YL
- Dismissed4 June 20266006133The Barns, Blounts Farm, Murrels Lane, SS5 6AB
- Dismissed5 May 20266001653St. Mary’s House, Rectory Road, Hawkwell, SS5 4LL
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.
®