- Decision
- dismissed, 10 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Andrew Phillips
- Authority
- Epping Forest (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6007030
- Application reference
- EPF/2501/25
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition of 1960s bungalow and garage; two-storey replacement self-build dwelling
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- green belt, rural lane
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(b), GB7(1)(e), GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- Epping Forest District Local Plan Part 1 2011-2033 SP5, DM4
- Main issues
- replacement dwelling; fallback; openness; VSC
Summary
Replacement of a single-storey 1960s bungalow with a two-storey self-build house that more than doubles floor area and volume. It was dismissed. The new building was "materially larger" under GB7(1)(b). Prior-approval and CLD fallbacks covered the ground-floor extensions, but not the added height. The first-floor bulk would cause substantial local harm to openness, so GB7(1)(e) also failed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The 2026 Framework was applied after comments (DL ¶2).
- GB7(1)(b): FAIL. "the proposal leads to over 100% increase in both floor area and volume. The proposed replacement dwelling is materially larger than the one it replaces" (DL ¶6).
- Fallback: the ground-floor extensions had "a greater than theoretical possibility" and got significant weight. The upward extension was "only a theoretical fallback" because structural feasibility was unproven (DL ¶8-10).
- GB7(1)(e) / openness: FAIL. "the significant increase in height would have a substantial urbanising impact … This in turn would cause local substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt by virtue of blocking views towards trees to the side and rear of the property" (DL ¶14).
- VSC: "improved accommodation and likely have limited short term economic benefits; these do not amount to a very special circumstance … neutral impact upon the housing stock" (DL ¶18).
Planning balance
GB6(2). Substantial weight to harm, with no VSC. S5 did not apply (DL ¶20).
What made the difference
Height. The footprint was within the permitted-development fallback envelope, but the ridge rose about 3 m with no credible fallback for a first floor. A single-storey replacement within the fallback volume would probably have passed (b) or (e).
Transferable points
- More than 100% increase in floor area and volume is "materially larger" for GB7(1)(b) (DL ¶6).
- Prior approvals for an upward extension are only a theoretical fallback unless structural feasibility is shown (DL ¶8).
- A replacement dwelling can also be tested as PDL redevelopment under GB7(1)(e). Loss of views through to trees can be substantial harm to openness (DL ¶11-14).
- A like-for-like replacement is neutral on housing supply (DL ¶18).
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) | fail | floor area 141 to 301 sqm, volume 583 to 1237 m3, ridge 5.5 to 8.46 m — over 100% increase so materially larger (DL 4-6) | |
| GB7(1)(e) | fail | first-floor height with no fallback causes "local substantial harm" to openness by blocking views to trees (DL 11-15) | |
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | improved accommodation and short-term economic benefit not VSC; neutral on housing stock (DL 16-18) |
| S5(5) | not-engaged | fails GB6/GB7 so S5 does not apply (DL 20) |
Key facts
- Replacement more than doubles floor area and volume; ridge rises about 3 m to match neighbour
- Fallback - prior approvals for rear extension and upward extension plus CLD for side extension. Ground-floor extensions given significant weight, but first-floor addition only theoretical (structural feasibility unproven)
- PROW along south-west boundary; mature trees behind
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.