®Planning appeal decision
Atlasta, Norsted Lane, Orpington, Bromley, BR6 7PQ
Planning appeal 6001141 at Atlasta, Norsted Lane, Orpington, Bromley, BR6 7PQ (London Borough of Bromley) was dismissed on 3 March 2026 by Inspector Lomax B, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of detached 4-bedroom dwelling
- Authority
- London Borough of Bromley
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Lomax B
- Postcode
- BR6 7PQ
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.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy 49Policy 52
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 143Paragraph 154Paragraph 155
- Judgments
- 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
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 London Borough of Bromley
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2026
- Split Decision5 August 20263378375Land Adjoining and to the West of Jodeen Animal Sanctuary, Sevenoaks Road, Halstead, Kent, TN14 7HR
- Dismissed30 April 20266005662336 Main Road, Biggin Hill, Westerham, Kent, TN16 2HL
- Allowed17 April 20266000833Land Between 127 & 129 Leaves Green Road, Keston, BR2 6DG
- Dismissed1 April 20266001927Land Rear of Clifton House, Royal Parade, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 6NW
- Notice varied and upheld31 March 20263343405Land to the Rear of 50 to 54 Cudham Lane, Cudham, TN14 7QY
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.