# Land adjacent to Village Hall, Clay Hill, Great Henny (pottery studio)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 24 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Terrence Kemmann-Lane
- **Authority:** Braintree (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009270
- **Application reference:** 25/02803/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Single-storey larch-clad pottery studio (described as replacement outbuilding) on a grass paddock in the countryside
- **Site context:** open-countryside, listed-building-setting, rural-lane
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional)
- **Determinative policies:** s38(6), HE6(4)
- **Development plan policies:** Braintree Local Plan Section 1 SP3, Section 2 LPP1
- **Main issues:** suitability of site for proposed use, heritage setting
- **Tags:** transitional, old-framework-applied, old-wording-slip, countryside, heritage-harm-decisive, fallback

## Summary
A hobby pottery studio on a countryside paddock beside Great Henny village hall was dismissed. It conflicted with the local countryside policy (LPP1) and caused "a low level of less than substantial harm" to a Grade II cottage's setting with no public benefit. The letter is dated a week after the new Framework took effect, but it applies the December 2024 NPPF throughout (¶¶11, 187, 212, 215) and never mentions the 2026 Framework.

## Issues and findings
- **Location: FAIL.** "the proposed use is not related to an agricultural of other appropriate countryside use. No explanation is given as to the reason for siting the pottery studio in this location … it would seem inevitable that access would be by a private motorised vehicle" (DL ¶6).
- **Heritage: HARM.** "As paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework states: 'Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm …'. In this case I cannot identify any public benefit" (DL ¶7).
- **The appellant's tilted-balance argument.** The appellant relied on "paragraph 11 c) or d)". The inspector rejected it because LPP1 was up to date and in accord "with paragraph 187 a) and b)", and because of "the weighty matter of less than substantial harm to a heritage asset (NPPF paragraphs 212 and 215)" (DL ¶11).

## Planning balance
A plan-led s38(6) decision. Conflict with LPP1 and heritage harm, against no public benefits.

## What made the difference
On the merits: no functional reason to be in the countryside, and harm to the setting with nothing on the other side. The outcome would be the same under S5 (no listed S5(1) category) and HE6(4). But the letter is an example of a post-17 Aug decision applying superseded paragraphs.

## Transferable points
- Evidence of uneven transition: a letter dated 24 Aug 2026 still applies 2024 ¶¶11, 187, 212, 215 and "less than substantial harm" (DL ¶7, ¶11). This is a potential s288 point for any challenge where the switch could matter.
- Fallback uses (28-day uses, open-air pottery, fencing) that are "rather fanciful" carry little weight (DL ¶10).

## Policy findings
- **S5: fail.** decided under 2024 NPPF para 11(c)/(d) (maps to S3-S5); countryside policy LPP1 up to date; no reason for the location; car-dependent (DL 5-6, 11)
- **HE6(4): fail.** "low level of less than substantial harm" to setting of Grade II Thatched Cottage; no public benefit; cites 2024 paras 212 and 215 (DL 7-8, 11)
- **N2: conflict.** 2024 para 187(a)/(b) (valued landscapes / intrinsic character; maps to N-chapter) cited in support of LPP1 (DL 11)

## Key facts
- Protected lane, Stour Valley National Landscape project area (not designated NL) (DL 3)
- Decision letter dated 24 Aug 2026 applies 2024 NPPF paras 11, 187, 212 and 215 with no mention of the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 7, 11)
- Fallback of 28-day uses, fencing and agriculture called "rather fanciful" (DL 10)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009270
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2c2abbd4-f99f-445d-aec7-bf76975d7609

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009270.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.