# Littlewood Farm, Jail Lane, Biggin Hill

- **Decision:** allowed, 21 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Heppell
- **Authority:** Bromley (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009189
- **Application reference:** 25/05448/FPA
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Demolition of stables, tack room and hay barn; three detached two-storey dwellings
- **Homes:** 3
- **Site context:** green-belt, PDL
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued)
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e), AnnexB:previously-developed-land
- **Development plan policies:** Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policy 49
- **Main issues:** effect of revised Framework on Green Belt assessment
- **Tags:** pdl-e-limb, equestrian-pdl, non-determination, pd-rights-removed, small-scheme

## Summary
Three houses replacing equestrian buildings at Biggin Hill in the London Green Belt. This was a non-determination appeal where the Council would have approved. It was allowed. The only issue was whether the August 2026 Framework changed anything. It did not: equestrian buildings are PDL, and the consolidated scheme met GB7(1)(e).

## Issues and findings
- **Main issue.** Whether the revised Framework "has implications for the proposal with particular reference to the Green Belt" (DL ¶5).
- **LP Policy 49 vs GB7(1)(e).** The local policy "broadly conforms with part (e) of Policy GB7 of the Framework, although the latter explicitly additionally encompasses a material change of use to residential, and the test it applies is that of substantial harm to the openness" (DL ¶7).
- **GB7(1)(e): PASS.** "the site comprises previously developed land … because it consolidated the built form on the site, the proposal would have no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt despite increasing the height of the buildings" (DL ¶8-9).

## Planning balance
No balance was needed. The scheme was not inappropriate and complied with the plan (DL ¶11). PD rights were removed to hold floorspace at the level of the demolished buildings (DL ¶25).

## What made the difference
The Council supported the scheme, and floorspace matched the equestrian buildings being demolished. The (e) test ("substantial harm") is more lenient than the local "no greater impact" test, so meeting the stricter local test meant the Framework test was met too.

## Transferable points
- Lawful equestrian buildings count as PDL for GB7(1)(e) (DL ¶8).
- The GB7(1)(e) threshold is "substantial harm" to openness, which is more lenient than older local "no greater impact" wording (DL ¶7).
- Consolidating built form can offset increased height (DL ¶8).
- Removing PD rights is a proportionate way to keep openness where the permission relies on floorspace parity (DL ¶25).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(e): pass.** equestrian buildings = PDL; similar floorspace, consolidated built form → no greater impact on openness despite increased height; GB7(e) test is "substantial harm" (DL 7-9)
- **LP Policy 49: accord.** broadly conforms with GB7(1)(e) though LP test is "no greater impact" vs Framework "substantial harm" (DL 7, 11)

## Key facts
- Appeal against non-determination. The Council said it would have granted permission
- There is an extant permission (23/01254/FULL1) for a single-storey dwelling and garage with a similar total footprint
- Equestrian stables were accepted as PDL
- Permitted development rights for Part 1 Classes A, B, C and E removed to protect openness (DL 25)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009189
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c30c412d-ce6f-4239-a152-b941be5b1b25

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009189.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.