# 3 Old Glass House, Kents Lane, North Weald Bassett

- **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Billy Pattison
- **Authority:** Epping Forest (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009621
- **Application reference:** EPF/0117/26
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Subdivision of a five-bed dwelling into two and conversion of outbuildings into a third dwelling, in the Metropolitan Green Belt
- **Homes:** 2
- **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane, PDL
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued)
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), S5(2), S5(5), GB7(1)(e)
- **Development plan policies:** Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033 Part One (2023) DM4, DM9, SP1, T1
- **Main issues:** Green Belt, character and appearance, suitable location
- **Tags:** pdl-e-limb, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, dp3-refuse-trigger, s5-2-refusal-policy, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, backland, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, drafting-slip, dp3-2-a-connectivity, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Splitting a large house into two and converting outbuildings into a third home on a rural lane in the Epping Forest Green Belt. Dismissed. The site is previously developed land, and the harm to openness was moderate, not substantial, so GB7(1)(e) made the scheme not inappropriate. DM4's stricter "no greater impact" (DL ¶9) test was given very limited weight. Under S5(5), though, the scheme conflicted with DP3(1) (a cramped, backland layout) and with DP3(2)(d) (poor connections to North Weald along unlit lanes without footways). DP3 is a should-be-refused policy, so S5(2) applied and the benefits were substantially outweighed.

## Issues and findings
- **Plan weight.** "Policy DM4 C (vi) of the LP requires proposals to have no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. This approach is more closely aligned with a previous version of the Framework. Consequently, the wording of Policy DM4, insofar as it relates to openness, is not consistent with the current Framework" (DL ¶9).
- **GB7(1)(e).** "I find that the development would cause a moderate degree of harm to the openness of the Green Belt when compared with the existing situation, but not substantial harm" (DL ¶16).
- **Character.** Unit 3 "would appear ‘squeezed’ onto the site in a manner that would appear cramped" (DL ¶22).
- **Location.** The roads to North Weald are "rural roads which are unlit and would not be an attractive route outside daylight hours. Furthermore, there are no dedicated cycle lanes or footpaths for the majority of the route" (DL ¶28). "Whilst the increase in trips may be limited, over time these would cumulatively result in a significant number of additional private vehicle movements" (DL ¶29).
- **GB and location are separate.** "Whilst I have found that the proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, this is a separate planning assessment to the consideration of whether a site is in a suitable location for residential development" (DL ¶32).
- **Not isolated.** The site is in a ribbon cluster, "therefore the site would not be isolated for the purposes of Policy HO11 of the Framework" (DL ¶30).
- **DP3 as a trigger.** "Policy DP3.2.d requires proposals to reflect principles such as providing good connections to nearby settlements and prioritising walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport" (DL ¶40). "Policy DP3 is one of the national decision-making policies that indicates planning permission should be refused in specific circumstances" (DL ¶40).

## Planning balance
S5(5) with S5(2). "Where development is proposed within the Green Belt, Policy S5 directs decision-makers to Policies GB6, GB7 and GB8 in the first instance" (DL ¶39). Substantial weight to reusing land and to housing (DL ¶41), against DP3 conflicts on character and connectivity. "the proposal's benefits would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects on the character and appearance of the area, together with its failure to align with principles that promote sustainable travel and good connections to nearby settlements" (DL ¶41).

## What made the difference
Passing the Green Belt test did not settle the case. The S5(5) balance still applies DP3's refusal trigger, and here two DP3 limbs failed: context (a cramped subdivision) and movement (car-dependent lanes). A layout that kept plot sizes spacious would have removed the DP3(1) conflict, but not the connectivity point.

## Transferable points
- An old local Green Belt policy using a no-greater-impact openness test is inconsistent with the substantial-harm threshold in GB7(1)(e); only that part loses weight (DL ¶9, 17).
- Passing GB7(1)(e) does not settle the location question (DL ¶32).
- Poor connectivity can engage DP3(2)(d), making DP3 a should-be-refused policy under S5(2) even for a not-inappropriate Green Belt scheme (DL ¶40-41).
- Small increases in trips add up to "a significant number of additional private vehicle movements" over time (DL ¶29).
- Unlit rural roads without footways or cycle lanes are not attractive "outside of daylight hours or during inclement weather" (DL ¶28).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(e): pass.** agreed PDL; a small porch, a 14 sqm link between outbuildings, paraphernalia and more comings and goings cause moderate, not substantial, harm to openness (DL 8-16, 18)
- **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** DM4 C(vi) no-greater-impact openness test inconsistent with the substantial-harm threshold in GB7(1)(e); very limited weight to that part (DL 9, 17)
- **HO11: not-engaged.** within a ribbon cluster, so not isolated (Braintree) (DL 30)
- **TR3: harm.** low connectivity on the Essex map; unlit rural lanes without footways or cycle lanes to North Weald; cumulative extra car trips (DL 27-29, 32)
- **DP3(1): conflict.** cramped subdivision and backland unit 3 at odds with spacious plots (DL 20-24, 40)
- **DP3(2)(d): conflict.** poor connections to nearby settlements; walking, wheeling and cycling not prioritised (DL 40)
- **DP3(3): fail.** DP3 treated as a should-be-refused policy under S5(2); clear justification not separately reasoned (DL 39-41)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** letter says "Policy HO11" for the substantial-weight wording (a miscitation of HO7); no 5YHLS, shortfall not stated (DL 35)
- **L2: benefit (limited weight).** L2/L3 effective use given limited weight for the scale; later folded into "substantial weight" to use of underutilised land (DL 36, 41)
- **S5(5): fail.** GB7 first; not inappropriate; then S5(2) trigger and benefits substantially outweighed (DL 39-41)

## Key facts
- Kents Lane is a quiet single-track lane; the route to North Weald is along unlit Kents Lane and Weald Bridge Road, mostly without footways or cycle lanes (DL 25, 28)
- Essex connectivity map shows low connectivity, undisputed (DL 27)
- Increase from one five-bed dwelling to three three-bed dwellings (DL 15)
- Epping Forest SAC contribution offered by UU; appropriate assessment not needed as dismissed (DL 34)
- Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009621
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/66ce7a80-0c31-46f1-beed-9abb7ad6510c

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009621.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.