# 15 Stradbroke Drive, Chigwell

- **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Gardner
- **Authority:** Epping Forest (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009640
- **Application reference:** EPF/2554/24
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Conversion of a backland annexe into a separate dwelling
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, TPO
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4, DP3(1), DP3(3), L2(1)(d)
- **Development plan policies:** Epping Forest District Local Plan Part One 2023 DM9, DM10
- **Main issues:** character of the area, living conditions
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, l2-plot-intensification, design-refusal, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2

## Summary
Converting a backland annexe in Chigwell into a separate dwelling was dismissed, although no physical works were proposed. Subdividing the plot would disrupt the spacious pattern of large detached plots, contrary to DP3(1). Under S4, the benefits, given substantial weight under L2(1)(d), were still "substantially outweighed" because DP3(3) says such proposals "should be refused" (DL ¶24-26).

## What made the difference
Plot legibility. Even with no new building, creating a small separate curtilage in an area of large plots breached DP3(1)'s "arrangement of development plots", and DP3(3) turned that into an S4(2)(c)-type refusal. The case shows L2(1)(d) substantial weight losing to a DP3 failure.

## Policy findings
- **L2(1)(d): benefit (substantial weight).** efficient windfall development within an existing plot - substantial weight (DL 24)
- **DP3(3): fail.** subdivided cramped plot at odds with spacious detached-plot character; no clear justification (DL 7-12, 25)
- **S4: fail.** substantially outweighed via S4(2) "should be refused" route (DL 22-26)

## Key facts
- 1980s annexe; lawful development certificate refused for independent occupation
- No external works; living conditions acceptable; within 3 km of Epping Forest SAC (not assessed)
- Page headers read "Appeal Decision 6001788" - PINS template slip

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009640
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bd19654d-10d4-482a-9fda-e526f0b6ed01

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009640.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.