Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Split Decision23 June 20263377437

Land NE Side of Church Road, Noak Hill, Romford, Essex, RM4 1LD

Authority
London Borough of Havering
Appeal type
enforcement · Enforcement Notice
Procedure
Hearing
Development
caravan-gypsy · Change of use
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 cumulative and substantial/very substantial harm to the Green Belt (inappropriateness, loss of openness) combined with very significant weight attached to intentional unauthorised development was not clearly outweighed by the unmet Gypsy and Traveller need, lack of five-year pitch supply and personal circumstances, so very special circumstances were not established.

the substantial harm from inappropriate development and loss of openness, significant harm to character and appearance, and very substantial weight attached to intentional unauthorised development were not clearly outweighed by the substantial weight given to unmet Gypsy and Traveller need/lack of five-year pitch supply and the moderate-to-substantial weight given to personal circumstances, so very special circumstances did not exist and the balance tipped against the development

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

Plan policies cited: Policy G2, Policy H14, Policy 11, Policy 12, Policy 23, Policy 26, Policy 27, Policy 30, Policy 32

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.