- Decision
- allowed, 28 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Billy Pattison
- Authority
- Brentwood (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6009849
- Application reference
- 25/01260/OUT
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Outline (access, layout and scale) for one self-build family dwelling in the garden of a rural house
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- green belt, PDL, rural lane, open countryside
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Housing land supply
- 4.53 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(e), S5(5), S5(2), HO7, L2
- Development plan policies
- Brentwood Local Plan 2022 MG02, MG03, BE07, BE09, BE14
- Main issues
- inappropriate development in the Green Belt; suitability of location and accessibility
Summary
A single dwelling in the garden of a rural house at Navestock, in the Green Belt, was allowed. Because the garden is outside a built-up area it counts as previously developed land, and the moderate harm to openness was below GB7(1)(e)'s "substantial" threshold, so the scheme was not inappropriate. The inspector found occupiers would be largely car-reliant on unlit lanes, but gave the local settlement-hierarchy conflict limited weight because of the supply shortfall, did not treat it as a TR3 conflict, and allowed the appeal under S5(5).
Issues and findings
- Transition. "During the appeal the main parties were invited to comment on the relevance of the revised Framework to the appeal proposal" (DL ¶2).
- Rural garden is PDL. "Although the appeal site is within a small cluster of dwellings and buildings, it does not form part of a built-up area. Consequently … I consider that the appeal site is not in a built-up area and therefore represents previously developed land" (DL ¶11).
- GB7(1)(e): PASS. "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). "not all harm to openness will necessarily be substantial" (DL ¶12).
- Location: car reliance found. "the occupants would be largely reliant on private vehicles to access these, due to the lack of safe pedestrian and cycle routes and having limited options for alternative modes of transport" (DL ¶20). Personal ties to the area do not count: "It is probable that the proposed dwelling would remain long after the appellants' personal circumstances cease to be material" (DL ¶22).
- Plan weight. "The overall housing land supply position indicates that the development plan is failing to meet its strategic challenges and the settlement strategy is not working effectively. The conflict with policies relating to these matters should therefore be afforded limited weight" (DL ¶37).
- Self-build unsecured. "There is therefore no mechanism to ensure that the proposal would be a self-build house. As such, I have to assess the proposal as market housing" (DL ¶28).
Planning balance
S5(5) via S5(2): "the proposal does not conflict with any decision-making policies that indicate planning permission should be refused" (DL ¶38). Substantial weight to effective use of PDL (DL ¶38) and to one home (DL ¶39). "I do not find that the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶40). TR3 is not named, and the car-reliance finding enters the balance only as a local-plan conflict of limited weight.
What made the difference
Treating the rural garden as PDL opened GB7(1)(e), which carries no location limb, and the screening by neighbouring houses kept openness harm moderate. The accessibility failure then counted only through local policies whose weight was cut for the supply shortfall. Had the inspector tested TR3 directly, or kept the settlement-hierarchy policies at full weight, the balance could have gone the other way.
Transferable points
- A garden in a small rural cluster that is not a built-up area is PDL (Dartford), opening GB7(1)(e) for a new dwelling (DL ¶9–11).
- GB7(1)(e) needs "substantial" openness harm to fail; moderate harm from a house slotted into a roadside ribbon passes (DL ¶12–16).
- An applicant's personal ties to the area do not overcome an inaccessible location (DL ¶21–22).
- Self-build status needs an obligation; a personal occupation condition fails DM6 (DL ¶28).
- Caution: DL ¶37 cuts local location policies for under-supply without an Annex A ¶2 test, and TR3 is never applied. Do not cite as TR3 authority.
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:PDL | pass | garden of Grassmere, no internal boundary and only accessed via the house, so within the curtilage; small rural cluster is not a built-up area, so the garden is PDL (Dartford [2017] EWCA Civ 141) (DL 9-11) | |
| GB7(1)(e) | pass | two-storey house slots into roadside ribbon between dwellings and Wattons Works; hedge retained; moderate, not substantial, openness harm (DL 12-16) | |
| GB7(1)(g) | not-engaged | not considered as (e) is met (DL 17) | |
| TR3 | harm | mapped (TR3 not named) - unlit narrow lanes, no pavements or cycle lanes for much of the route, poor public transport; occupiers largely car-reliant; appellants' local family and business ties discounted as personal (DL 18-23) | |
| S5(5) | pass | S5 directs to GB6-GB8, then S5(2); no "should be refused" policy breached; benefits not substantially outweighed (DL 36-40) | |
| L2 | benefit | substantial | substantial weight to effective use of PDL (DL 38); L2/L3 given only limited weight at DL 25 ("Given the scale of the proposal") |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | one dwelling given substantial weight against a 4.53-year supply (DL 39) |
| LP MG03/BE09/BE14 (local) | conflict | limited | settlement hierarchy and sustainable travel conflict given limited weight because the supply position shows "the settlement strategy is not working effectively" (2024-style, no Annex A(2) test) (DL 37) |
| DM6 | fail | no obligation securing self-build; occupation-by-builder condition would fail the tests, so treated as market housing (DL 28) |
Key facts
- Site is the far end of the garden of Grassmere in a small roadside cluster with three houses and Wattons Works light industry (DL 10, 14)
- Council supply 4.53 years, agreed (DL 24)
- Appellants' family and businesses nearby and they own the field behind for a smallholding; given no weight as personal circumstances (DL 21-22)
- Visibility splays 2.4 x 87 m NE and 2.4 x 62 m SW by condition (condition 11)
- PD-rights removal conditions refused for lack of clear justification (DL 35)
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.