- Decision
- dismissed, 21 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Jane Smith
- Authority
- Epping Forest (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6006761
- Application reference
- EPF/1406/22
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use of former agricultural buildings to B8 storage (c. 2,000 sq m, 30 units) and associated development
- Site context
- green belt, open countryside, rural lane
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- TR6(4), S5(2), S5(5), GB7(1)(b)
- Development plan policies
- Epping Forest District Local Plan 2023 T1, DM9
- Main issues
- highway safety; sustainable location; S5(5) balance
Summary
B8 storage conversion of farm buildings in the Epping Forest Green Belt. Not inappropriate under GB7(1)(b). The location conflicted with TR3 and E3 but was on balance acceptable given E2 and E4 support. Dismissed because the required visibility splay could not be secured on land the highway authority accepts as highway. That breach of TR6(4), a "refuse" policy, meant the S5(2) presumption was defeated.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Parties had the opportunity to comment (DL ¶2).
- GB7(1)(b): PASS. The Council's 2024 ¶154(h)(iv) finding carried across to GB7: "it continues to allow in principle for re-use of existing buildings … it is not necessary to consider whether the proposed use would have any adverse impact on the openness" (DL ¶7–8).
- Highway safety / TR6(4): FAIL. "a condition to secure the visibility splay would not be enforceable … contrary to one of the tests for planning conditions … as incorporated into Policy DM6" (DL ¶19). A Grampian condition was not possible because there was "no prospect of the vegetation … being kept cut back" (DL ¶20).
- Location / TR3 / E3: some conflict, acceptable overall. "Coopersale Lane … lacks dedicated footpaths or street lighting. It is therefore highly unlikely that the site would routinely be accessed on foot, and that in turn greatly reduces any prospects of the public transport options being used" (DL ¶23). TRICS data showing B8 attracts few non-car trips "does not mean that the nature of the development makes travel by those means inherently impractical" (DL ¶26). Mitigated by E2 and E4, so "acceptable, albeit not ideal" (DL ¶29).
Planning balance
S5 via S5(5): "the proposal would not be inappropriate development … That being so, part 2 of Policy S5 is applicable" (DL ¶33). TR6(4) is "amongst the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances", so the benefits were "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶35–36).
What made the difference
Land control of the visibility splay. Uncertain highway ownership of a ditch defeated both conditions and Grampian conditions, and TR6(4) then acts as a trump card through S5(2).
Transferable points
- A 2024 ¶154(h)(iv) re-use finding translates directly to GB7(1)(b), with no openness test (DL ¶7–8).
- Through S5(2), a breach of TR6(4) on highway safety is enough to find the benefits substantially outweighed, even with substantial E2 weight in favour (DL ¶33–36).
- The TR3 "genuine choice" applies to employees of B8 uses; low TRICS non-car mode shares do not make alternatives "impractical" (DL ¶26).
- An unlit hedged lane without a footway undermines nearby bus and tube options (DL ¶23).
- The planning baseline is the lawful use (agriculture), not unauthorised current activity (DL ¶6, ¶13).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(b) | pass | re-use of renovated buildings of permanent and substantial construction; no need to assess openness (DL 7-8) | |
| TR6(4) | fail | 2.4 x 78 m visibility splay depends on a ditch and verge the highway authority says is private; not securable by condition or Grampian condition (DL 14-21, 35) | |
| TR3 | conflict | c. 1 km from Theydon Bois along a hedged lane with no footway or lighting; about 170 daily trips; "some conflict" (DL 23-25, 29) | |
| E3 | conflict | freight and logistics should have access by sustainable modes where possible (DL 26, 29) | |
| E4 | benefit | rural conversion supported, but no specific occupier or farm diversification (DL 27) | |
| E2 | benefit | substantial | substantial weight in principle to freight and logistics, tempered by poor location, modest scale and dated demand evidence (DL 28, 34) |
| S5(2) | fail | conflict with a refusal-directing policy (TR6(4)), so benefits substantially outweighed (DL 33-36) |
Key facts
- Five former agricultural buildings, just under 2,000 sq m, 30 units; about 170 daily trips predicted (Ardent TS 2022)
- Visibility splay needs land in a ditch and verge; Essex Highways Records says the highway stops at the roadside brow of the ditch
- Officers initially drafted an approval, withdrawn after further highway evidence
- Planning baseline is agricultural use, despite alleged existing storage use and a 2024 appeal quashing an enforcement notice
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.