Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3349338

Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.

A clearer next step

See how Inspectors approached issues like yours

Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.

  • See which issues the decision appears to turn on
  • Compare the facts and open the full appeal records

One private comparison

How the refusal review works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

9 sections

Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.

Section 01

Development description

a replacement outbuilding.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a replacement outbuilding at [site address] , Kent [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/23/03072, subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule.

  2. Section 03

    Preliminary Matters

    The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. [name] of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has not changed but, nevertheless, a different wording has been entered. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the one given on the original application form.

    The revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in December 2024. The revised Framework is a material consideration which should be taken into account from the day of publication. Having considered the revisions and in light of the principles of natural justice, the parties have been provided with an opportunity to comment on the revised Framework.

  3. Section 04

    [name]

    The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of development plan policy and the Framework; and • if it is inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

  4. Section 05

    Whether the proposal is inappropriate development

    The Framework explains that the fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

    The appeal site is set back from [address] and is accessed via a narrow track. The site comprises a detached dwelling with a single-storey outbuilding positioned towards the side boundary. The proposal is for a replacement part single-storey, part two-storey outbuilding. The replacement building would include a gym, garage and storage area with a first-floor yoga studio.

    Policy CP3 of the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 (CS) establishes the extent of the Green Belt and states that National Green Belt policy will be applied. Paragraph 154 of the Framework regards the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. An exception to this is the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. The Framework does not define a specific threshold to assess whether a proposal is materially larger.

    The parties agree that the new building would be in the same use as the one it would replace and would have a smaller footprint and volume. The difference in height between the proposed replacement building and the existing building would be limited. However, the new building would have a lower ground level than the existing building, and the actual difference in height between the existing and proposed buildings would be substantial. Furthermore, the proposal would result in a 38% increase in floor area. Taken together, the new building would be materially larger than the one it would replace.

    Another exception includes the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Previously developed land is defined in Annex 2 of the Framework as ‘land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure’. The definition excludes land in built-up areas such as residential gardens.

    The site includes a detached dwelling and its associated garden, in addition to the existing outbuilding. The site is in an area of dispersed development, set back from [address] without a coherent built-up character. Moreover, the Council identify the site as being outside the confines of Ightham. Accordingly, as the land is occupied by a permanent structure and the site does not fall within the exclusions set out in the Framework, the proposal would be on previously developed land.

    The site is visually contained by the mature trees and planting to the front and side boundaries. The building would be glimpsed from the access track through the entrance to the site. Nevertheless, given the level of screening from the landscaping and the position of the proposal on the footprint of the existing building, the visual effect of the development would be minimal. Consequently, the proposal would result in only limited harm to the visual openness of the Green Belt. In addition, due to the overall reduction in the volume of built form, the proposal would lead to an increase in the spatial openness of the Green Belt.

    The proposal would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Moreover, the limited effects would not be of such a magnitude that the proposal would conflict with any of the five purposes of including land in the Green Belt, as set out in Paragraph 143 of the Framework.

    Therefore, the proposed development is not inappropriate development, as per Paragraph 154 g) of the Framework. Consequently, very special circumstances do not need to be demonstrated for the proposal to be considered acceptable in Green Belt terms. The proposal accords with Policy CP3 of the CS as set out above and the Framework, which seeks to protect the Green Belt from harm.

  5. Section 06

    [name]

    The site is within the National Landscape. Paragraph 189 of the Framework requires that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in the NL. I am also mindful of the statutory purpose of NLs to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. The Council consider that the proposal is of a design and scale that would conserve landscape and scenic beauty in the NL, and I see no reason to disagree.

  6. Section 07

    Conditions

    In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. This is in the interests of certainty.

    The quality of the environment would be protected by conditions in respect of soft landscaping, including the protection of existing trees at the site. A condition is also included to ensure that the proposed building is used only in association with the residential use of the main dwelling.

    The Council has also suggested a condition that would remove permitted development rights for extensions and alterations to the dwelling and in respect of development in the curtilage of the dwelling. The Framework advises that conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 does not remove permitted development rights in the Green Belt. Given the limitations in terms of size and position of development permitted, I am not persuaded that the site circumstances are such, to justify the removal of these permitted development rights.

  7. Section 08

    Conclusion

    For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

  8. Section 09

    Schedule of Conditions

    The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: Site Location Plan, SP1419-23-PL01, SP1419-23-PL03, SP1419-23-PL04_A, and SP1419-23-PL05_A.

    No development shall commence until a scheme of landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, identify those to be retained and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of development. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

    No development shall commence until precise details of the location, extent and depth of all excavations for services (including but not limited to electricity, gas, water, drainage and telecommunications) in relation to trees on and adjacent to the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

    The outbuilding hereby permitted shall not be used other than for purposes ancillary to the enjoyment of the main dwellinghouse namely [site address] , Ightham. End of Schedule

Planning inspector and document dates

The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.

  • Appeal Decision

    Extracted inspector · page 1
    Inspector attribution ID 20880No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    26 February 2025Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    3 February 2025 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3349338
Application reference
TM/23/03072
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council
Planning authority code
E07000115

Casework details

The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.

Casework type
Householder (HAS)
Procedure
Written Representations
Development type
Householder developments
Appeal type reason
1. Refused planning permission
Appeal reason
Refusal
Type detail
Unknown
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked

Site and development

Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.

Site area
Not recorded
Floor space
Not recorded
Number of residences
0
Site in Green Belt
Yes
Agricultural holding
No
Affects setting of a listed building
Not recorded
Historic building grant made
Not recorded
Relates to a conservation area
Not recorded
Flooding is an issue
Not recorded
Site within an AONB
Not recorded
Site within an SSSI
Not recorded

Decision and dates

The published outcome and every imported case date.

Official decision
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
2 August 2024
Valid date
2 August 2024
Start date
12 September 2024
Planning authority decision date
3 July 2024
Appeal decision date
26 February 2025

Case administration

Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.

Redetermined
No
Bespoke
No
Date recovered
Not recorded
Date not recovered or derecovered
Not recorded
Call-in date
Not recorded
Costs applied for
Not recorded
Enforcement grounds count
Not recorded
Enforcement grounds
Not recorded

Source and catalogue history

When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.

Source
Planning Inspectorate casework database
Source data system
Horizon
Dataset status
Current release
Catalogue record ID
65250
First seen
20 August 2026 at 14:25
Last seen
20 August 2026 at 16:28
Removed from release
Not recorded
Record created
20 August 2026 at 14:25
Record updated
24 August 2026 at 16:21