®Planning appeal decision
Atlasta, Norsted Lane, Orpington, Bromley, BR6 7PQ
- Authority
- London Borough of Bromley
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Lomax B
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt
- the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt
- whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development
What decided it
The replacement dwelling would be materially larger than the existing building and would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt with substantial harm to openness, and no very special circumstances exist to justify this harm.
The benefits of replacing an aged dwelling with a modern building constructed to contemporary sustainability standards were outweighed by the substantial harm of inappropriate development in the Green Belt and harm to openness in both spatial and visual terms.
Framework references: 11, 143, 154, 155
Plan policies cited: Policy 49, Policy 52
Judgments cited: Athlone House Ltd v SSCLG & LB of Camden [2015] EWHC 3524 (admin); Turner v SSCLG & East Dorset Council [2016] EWCA Civ 466; R (on the application of Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) and others) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC; North Wiltshire DC v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 65 P. & C.R. 137; Cumberlege v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2017] EWHC 2057
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.