Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Split Decision23 June 20263377383

NOAK HILL, Romford, RM4 1LD

Authority
London Borough of Havering
Appeal type
enforcement · Enforcement Notice
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
caravan-gypsy · Major traveller and caravan pitches
Inspector
Kean G

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt exists, including whether the appeal site is grey belt, the contribution made to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and whether it is a sustainable location
  • if inappropriate development, the effect on openness
  • character and appearance of the area, including visual and landscape impacts
  • impact on protected species and biodiversity
  • surface water drainage and flood risk
  • weight to be given to intentional unauthorised development
  • if inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations amounting to the very special circumstances required to justify the development

What decided it

The totality of harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, combined with substantial harm to openness, significant harm to character and appearance, and very substantial weight attached to intentional unauthorised development, was not clearly outweighed by the identified unmet need for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation and lack of five-year supply, such that very special circumstances did not exist to justify the development.

The substantial weight given to harm to the Green Belt and additional significant harm to openness, combined with very substantial weight to intentional unauthorised development and significant harm to character and appearance, was not clearly outweighed by the substantial weight given to the identified unmet need for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation and lack of five-year supply, resulting in dismissal of the appeals.

Framework references: 11, 110, 115, 135, 143, 153, 154, 155, 186, 187

Plan policies cited: London Plan Policy G2, London Plan Policy H14, HLP Policy 11, HLP Policy 12, HLP Policy 23, HLP Policy 26, HLP Policy 27, HLP Policy 30

Judgments cited: Dear v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 29 (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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.