- Decision
- dismissed, 2 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: L Francis
- Authority
- Thurrock (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6008679
- Application reference
- 25/00966/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Part demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of 5 dwellings on a new cul-de-sac in the rear garden
- Homes
- 5
- Site context
- green belt, settlement edge
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt accepted)
- Housing land supply
- 1.02 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- DP3(1), DP3(3), S5(2), S5(5)
- Development plan policies
- Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development 2015 CSSP1, CSSP4, PMD6, CSTP22, CSTP23, PMD2
- Main issues
- grey belt and inappropriate development; character and appearance
Summary
Five houses on a cul-de-sac in the long rear garden of a house on High Road, Fobbing, in the Green Belt. The site was accepted as grey belt, the supply was 1.02 years, and the location passed the sustainable location limb on well-lit footways and a bus stop 100 m away. So the scheme was not inappropriate. It was still dismissed: building in depth behind a linear frontage caused significant harm to character, in conflict with DP3(1). DP3(3) made that a "should be refused" policy under S5(2), and the harm substantially outweighed five homes given substantial weight.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The Council and the appellant were given the opportunity to comment upon the revisions insofar as they relate to the appeal" (DL ¶3).
- Plan weight. "these policies pre-date the current version of the Framework; I have necessarily assessed the appeal scheme against the criteria set out in the Framework" (DL ¶5).
- Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS. "It is not disputed that the appeal site does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d) of GB2" (DL ¶6). "I am satisfied therefore that the appeal site would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan" (DL ¶8).
- Unmet need, GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS. "This is evidenced by the Council’s housing land supply quoted in the officers report as being the equivalent of 1.02 years" (DL ¶9).
- Sustainable location, GB7(1)(g)(iii): PASS. "These facilities would be accessible by level, well-lit footways" (DL ¶11). "Even though the bus services are not frequent, there are services throughout the day which would provide an alternative means than the private car of accessing services and facilities" (DL ¶11). "In the context of the site’s semi-rural location, the proposal would be in a sustainable location given the availability of public transport and the relative accessibility of services and facilities through walking or cycling" (DL ¶12).
- Openness. "The grey belt concept means that the development does not need to prove it will not affect the openness of the Green Belt for the land to be categorised or developed as grey belt" (DL ¶14).
- Character, DP3(1): CONFLICT. "By extending the built development deep into the appeal site, the proposal would have the effect of harming the predominantly linear pattern of development in this part of Fobbing" (DL ¶20). "I afford substantial weight to the harm I have identified" (DL ¶42).
- Housing, HO7: substantial. "the benefit of 5 additional dwellings would not be significant in terms of addressing this shortfall" (DL ¶43).
- DP3(3) through S5(2). "Framework Policy DP3(3) states that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with DP3(1)" (DL ¶45).
Planning balance
S5(5), applying S5(2). "Policy S5 sets out that in the Green Belt, where development would not be inappropriate through the application of Policy GB7, proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶44). Harm: DP3(1) character conflict, substantial weight. Benefits: 5 homes, substantial weight; biodiversity and energy, moderate; economic and electric vehicle charging, limited. "I conclude that the benefits of the appeal proposal would be substantially outweighed by this harm" (DL ¶46). The letter quotes the "without clear justification" words but makes no separate finding on whether justification exists.
What made the difference
Depth. The houses themselves were found well designed, but a cul-de-sac running back from a ribbon of frontage houses into garden land and fields changed the pattern of the place. Other cul-de-sacs off High Road were in the already clustered northern end. Passing every limb of GB7(1)(g) at a 1.02-year supply did not help once DP3(3) was engaged.
Transferable points
- Passing GB7(1)(g) is not approval: a not-inappropriate grey belt scheme of 5 homes at 1.02 years' supply was dismissed on DP3(1) character harm through S5(5) and S5(2) (DL ¶44–46).
- DP3(3) is a "should be refused" policy for S5(2); a DP3(1) conflict given substantial weight outweighed housing also given substantial weight (DL ¶42–46).
- Well-designed houses can still conflict with DP3(1) where the layout breaks the settlement pattern (DL ¶22–23).
- Limb (iii) passed on level, well-lit footways and a bus stop within 100 m with services through the day, in a "semi-rural" context (DL ¶11–12).
- Grey belt development does not have to show it leaves openness unaffected (DL ¶14).
- Five homes get substantial HO7 weight but "would not be significant in terms of addressing this shortfall" (DL ¶43).
- An unmade access track distinguished a nearby dismissed appeal on location (DL ¶28).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| AnnexB:grey-belt | pass | not disputed that the site does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d); letter says "Annexe B" (DL 6) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(i) | pass | site helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment but not significantly across the plan area; would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt (DL 8) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | pass | housing land supply equivalent to 1.02 years, from the officer's report (DL 9) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | pass | farm shop and cafe, garden centre, church, pub and recreation ground reached by level, well-lit footways; bus stop within about 100 m with services through the day, though not frequent; further facilities in Corringham within about 2 km by footway, "walkable for some but not all"; sustainable "in the context of the site's semi-rural location" (DL 10-12) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iv) | not-engaged | not major development (DL 13) | |
| DP3(1) | conflict | substantial | cul-de-sac deep into the plot harms the linear pattern of this part of Fobbing and suburbanises a rural, verdant setting; "significant harm to the character of the area"; substantial weight to the harm; houses themselves well designed (DL 20-23, 42) |
| DP3(3) | fail | quoted - refuse "if, without clear justification, they conflict with DP3(1)"; no separate finding on justification (DL 45-46) | |
| S5(2) | fail | fails a "should be refused" policy, so benefits likely to be substantially outweighed (DL 45) | |
| S5(5) | fail | not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed, applying S5(2); benefits substantially outweighed by the character harm (DL 44, 46) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | net gain of 5 accessible family homes; substantial weight, but "the benefit of 5 additional dwellings would not be significant in terms of addressing this shortfall" (DL 36, 43) |
| N6 | neutral | Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar zone of influence; no appropriate assessment as dismissed (DL 25-27) |
Key facts
- Housing land supply 1.02 years (officer's report figure) (DL 9)
- Bus stop within about 100 m, services to Orsett hospital and Basildon; level, well-lit footways to local facilities; Corringham facilities within about 2 km (DL 11)
- Green Belt and spatial policies CSSP1, CSSP4 and PMD6 set aside because they "pre-date the current version of the Framework" (DL 5, 24)
- Openness not assessed - grey belt development "does not need to prove it will not affect the openness of the Green Belt" (DL 14)
- Four earlier cul-de-sac permissions off High Road distinguished - they are in the more clustered northern part of Fobbing (DL 31-32)
- Biodiversity net gain on site, ecological features and energy efficiency given moderate weight; economic benefits and EV charging limited weight (DL 37-39, 43)
- Scheme followed pre-application advice (DL 35)
- Costs application by the appellant is the subject of a separate decision (DL 2)
- A separate Fobbing appeal, PINS-6009919, was dismissed on 29 September 2026
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.