®Planning appeal decision
Land south of Weycock Cottage, Four Elms, Milley Road, Waltham St Lawrence, Reading, RG10 0JR
the construction of a single dwellinghouse with all matters reserved
- Authority
- Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Other minor developments
- Inspector
- Chalk M
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the development proposed would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies
- The effect on the openness of the Green Belt
- Whether sufficient detail has been provided to allow the proposal to be assessed in terms of its effect on protected species and biodiversity, climate change, trees, and whether it would be likely to result in an increased risk of flooding
- 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 constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt that would harm openness, combined with unsafe access and insufficient technical information on protected species and climate change, which together are not clearly outweighed by the moderate benefit of delivering a single dwelling in a context of housing land supply shortfall.
The benefits of delivering a single house in a context of housing land supply shortfall (4 years) attracted moderate weight, but this did not clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, inevitable loss of openness, unsafe and unsuitable access, and lack of information on protected species and climate change mitigation.
Framework references: 155, 11
Plan policies cited: QP5, NR2, EP1, SP2, NR3, NR1
Judgments cited: Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759; R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [1991] 1 AC 521; Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223; Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578; R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster)) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] PTSR 221; Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40; Sporrong and Lönnroth v Sweden (1982) 5 EHRR 35; R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] UKHL 23; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531
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.