Planning appeal decision
Land Adjoining Westwood End, Bucks Hill, Kings Langley, WD4 9AS
Planning appeal 6004957 at Land Adjoining Westwood End, Bucks Hill, Kings Langley, WD4 9AS (Three Rivers) was dismissed on 30 June 2026 by Inspector AJ Steen, following a hearing. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: The effect of traffic and parking relating to the development on the safe and efficient operation of the highway network in the vicinity of the appeal site.
material change of use to a residential caravan site, for occupation by Gypsies/Travellers, comprising the siting of 2 static caravans with associated hardstanding
- Authority
- Three Rivers
- Appeal type
- Planning
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- caravan-gypsy
- Inspector
- AJ Steen
- Postcode
- WD4 9AS
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of traffic and parking relating to the development on the safe and efficient operation of the highway network in the vicinity of the appeal site
- Whether the proposed works would preserve the Grade II listed buildings known as Greys and Blenheim Cottage or their settings or any features of special architectural and historic interest (or significance) which they possess
- The effect of the development on the intrinsic character and beauty of the landscape and adjacent rural lane
- Whether the proposal would be 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 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's inappropriateness in the Green Belt, compounded by the failure to achieve safe highway access under paragraph 155(c), meant the harm was not clearly outweighed by other considerations to amount to very special circumstances.
The harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, together with the other harms identified, was not clearly outweighed by the unmet need for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation and the appellant's personal circumstances, so the presumption in favour of sustainable development did not apply and the appeal was dismissed.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy CP1Policy CP5Policy CP10Policy CP11Policy CP12Policy DM1Policy DM2Policy DM3Policy DM13Policy 1 of the Sarratt Neighbourhood PlanPolicy 2 of the Sarratt Neighbourhood Plan
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 49Paragraph 115Paragraph 116Paragraph 212Paragraph 215Paragraph 155Paragraph 110Paragraph 11
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 Three Rivers
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2026
- Allowed12 October 20266002930Land to the Rear of, 76 and 78 Church Lane, Sarratt, WD3 6HL
- Allowed24 September 20266010198Rusper, Nottingham Road, Heronsgate, WD3 5DN
- Dismissed12 August 20266006827Land Adjacent to Sarratt Lane, Loudwater, WD3 4AS
- Dismissed17 June 202660058338 Moneyhill Parade Uxbridge Road, Rickmansworth, WD3 7BE
- Dismissed8 June 20266002193114 Denham Way, Maple Cross, WD3 9SP
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.
®