- Decision
- dismissed, 1 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: S F Barnes
- Authority
- Rochford (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6008122
- Application reference
- 24/00600/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition of the existing house and garages and construction of a four-bedroom Georgian-style house with workshop and garage
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- green belt, PDL, rural lane
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- BNG (Sch 7A TCPA), DM6, N2(1)(a), S5(5)
- Development plan policies
- Rochford Development Management Plan 2014 DM21
- Main issues
- biodiversity net gain; inappropriate development
Summary
A replacement house in the Green Belt at Canewdon was dismissed on biodiversity net gain (BNG) alone. The inspector found the scheme not inappropriate under GB7(1)(e) and cut the conflicting local replacement-dwelling policy to very limited weight. But the self-build exemption from BNG could not lawfully be secured by the occupancy condition both parties had agreed, and with no baseline evidence the statutory requirement was not met. That harm substantially outweighed the limited benefits in the S5(5) balance.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "I have considered the comments made by the main parties on this matter" (DL ¶4).
- Self-build condition, DM6: FAIL. "compliance with it would depend on the continued occupation of the dwelling by a particular person. If for any reason that person ceased to occupy the dwelling before the end of the specified period, the self-build exemption would no longer apply" (DL ¶8). "the suggested condition would be in conflict with the PPG and would therefore fail the tests of reasonableness and enforceability set out in Framework policy DM6" (DL ¶9).
- BNG: FAIL. "In the absence of evidence of the site's pre-development biodiversity value, there is no basis upon which compliance with the statutory BNG requirements could be determined" (DL ¶10).
- GB7(1)(e): PASS. "Whilst the proposal would replace an existing dwelling, it would also redevelop PDL" (DL ¶15). Neither the evidence nor the case law suggested "that a proposal falling within one category of Policy GB7 cannot also be considered against another" (DL ¶15). "Any resulting harm to openness would therefore fall short of the high threshold of substantial harm" (DL ¶16).
- Plan weight, Annex A ¶2. "Policy DM21 of the DMP does not contemplate that exception. It is therefore materially inconsistent with Framework policy GB7 as it applies to this proposal" (DL ¶17).
- N2(1)(a): CONFLICT. "there would be conflict with Framework policy N2(1)(a), to which I attach significant weight" (DL ¶23).
Planning balance
S5(5): "As the site lies outside a settlement, Framework policy S5(5) is engaged" (DL ¶21). Benefits each limited: an open-market replacement dwelling with no evidence of need, private design preferences, and short-term construction activity (DL ¶22). Against: the N2(1)(a) conflict, significant weight. "The benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects when assessed against the Framework's national decision-making policies" (DL ¶23). The appeal failed on material considerations despite no conflict with the plan as a whole (DL ¶24).
What made the difference
The absence of a baseline biodiversity assessment, combined with reliance on a self-build exemption that could only be secured by a personal occupancy condition. A planning obligation securing self-build, or a metric showing how 10% would be delivered, would have left nothing against the scheme.
Transferable points
- A condition tying occupation to the person who commissioned the house, for a fixed period, fails the DM6 tests: permission runs with the land, and the biodiversity effects outlast any change of occupier (DL ¶8–9).
- Agreement between council and appellant that self-build can be secured by condition does not bind the inspector (DL ¶7–9).
- A replacement dwelling that may fail GB7(1)(b) can be tested under GB7(1)(e) as redevelopment of PDL; the categories are alternatives (DL ¶15).
- A local replacement-dwelling policy limiting bulk and massing is materially inconsistent with GB7(1)(e) and gets very limited weight under Annex A ¶2 (DL ¶17).
- Not-inappropriate Green Belt development with no plan conflict can still be refused in the S5(5) balance on an unmet statutory BNG requirement (DL ¶21–24).
- HO7 weight for a one-for-one replacement dwelling is limited (DL ¶22).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| BNG (Sch 7A TCPA) | fail | self-build exemption relied on, with no baseline biodiversity evidence; the condition offered to secure self-build fails the DM6 tests, so the exemption is not secured and compliance cannot be assessed (DL 3, 7-10) | |
| DM6 | fail | condition requiring first occupation for 3 years by the person who commissioned the design depends on a particular occupier; contrary to PPG that permission runs with the land; fails reasonableness and enforceability (DL 6, 8-9) | |
| N2(1)(a) | conflict | significant | not shown that the proposal would conserve or enhance biodiversity (DL 23) |
| GB7(1)(e) | pass | redevelopment of PDL; bulkier at first-floor and roof level but negligible change in footprint and an enclosed site, so harm to openness falls short of substantial; a replacement dwelling may be tested under (e) as well as (b) (DL 15-16) | |
| GB7(1)(b) | not-engaged | Council said the proposal fell outside (b); the appellant relied on (e) instead; no finding made on (b) (DL 15) | |
| Transitional(2) | conflict | very-limited | LP DM21 limits bulk and massing of replacement dwellings and does not contemplate the PDL exception, so it is materially inconsistent with GB7 as it applies here (DL 13, 17) |
| S5(5) | fail | not inappropriate, but benefits substantially outweighed by the BNG and N2 conflict (DL 21, 23) | |
| HO7 | benefit | limited | replacement of a single dwelling with no detailed evidence of need; substantial weight would "ordinarily" apply (DL 22) |
Key facts
- Proposed ridge less than 1 m higher than the existing; modest reduction in built volume and footprint; built form consolidated into one taller mass (DL 12-13)
- Council and appellant agreed self-build could be secured by suggested Condition 16; the inspector sought views and disagreed (DL 3, 6-9)
- No evidence of the site's pre-development biodiversity value (DL 3, 10)
- Design, living conditions, highways, flood risk and trees all acceptable to the Council; neutral (DL 20)
- Dismissed although no conflict with the development plan as a whole was found (DL 24)
- Parties commented on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4)
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.