Ewen House, High Road, Fobbing (pool and annexe)

Decision

dismissed, 29 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: J Heppell

Authority

Thurrock (East of England)

Appeal reference

6009919

Application reference

25/01158/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Covered pool and single-storey "eco annexe" with green roof on a former builder's yard behind two High Road houses

Site context

green belt, washed over village, conservation area, listed building setting, PDL

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt accepted)

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB6(2), HE6(4)

Development plan policies

Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development 2015 PMD2, PMD4, PMD6, PMD8, CSTP22, CSTP23, CSTP24

Main issues

grey belt and inappropriateness; openness; character and heritage; highway safety; VSC

Summary

A covered pool and "eco annexe" on a former builder's yard behind two houses in Fobbing, a washed-over Green Belt village and conservation area. Only part of the site was PDL, so GB7(1)(e) failed. The site was grey belt and the location passed (g)(iii), but there was no evidenced unmet need for an annexe and pool, so (g)(ii) failed and the scheme was inappropriate. With openness loss and moderate conservation-area harm, VSC was not shown. Dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "The main parties were afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the new Framework for the proposal" (DL ¶4).
• PDL: part only. "there is insufficient evidence that the land behind Vine Cottage and Sandiacre was previously developed, given that the remains of any permanent structure or fixed surface structure that may have existed have since blended into the landscape" (DL ¶14). "I conclude that the site as a whole is not previously developed land" (DL ¶15).
• Grey belt: PASS; (g)(i): PASS. Encroachment "would be not be so significant as to affect the ability of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area to serve all five Green Belt purposes in a meaningful way" (DL ¶19).
• (g)(ii): FAIL. "It has not therefore been demonstrated that there is an unmet need for the development, and consequently criterion ii is not satisfied" (DL ¶21).
• (g)(iii): PASS. "I observed that the pedestrian route to Corringham utilises a pavement with street lighting and is relatively level for most of the way" (DL ¶22); passed "having regard to its rural situation" (DL ¶22).
• Openness. "giving rise to a significant increase in built form and a consequent loss of spatial openness" (DL ¶27).
• Heritage: HARM, moderate. "The result would be a moderate degree of harm to the CA’s significance, to which I attach considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶34). "The immediate benefits of the custom-built proposal would be private rather than public" (DL ¶35).
• Washed-over village. "villages which lie within and are defined as part of the Green Belt, as is the case with Fobbing, are not settlements for the purposes of the Framework, and consequently Policy S4 is not engaged. As the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, Policy S5 does not apply to it either" (DL ¶49).

Planning balance

GB6(2) VSC: substantial weight to inappropriateness and openness harm, and HE6(3) considerable weight to heritage harm, against limited-weight benefits. "The other considerations above do not clearly outweigh the harm arising from inappropriateness and other harm" (DL ¶46). HE6(4) was run separately first (DL ¶35).

What made the difference

Need. An annexe and pool for one household is not an "evidenced unmet need" for (g)(ii), and a possible future bungalow is theoretical. A split PDL finding also closed the (e) route.

Transferable points

• A washed-over Green Belt village is not a settlement in the Framework sense: S4 is not engaged, and S5 does not apply to inappropriate development (DL ¶49).
• PDL is judged over the whole site; where part has blended into the landscape, GB7(1)(e) fails for the site as a whole (DL ¶14-15).
• (g)(ii) needs need for the "type of development proposed"; a private annexe and pool with unexplained personal need, unsecured self-build and a theoretical future use do not qualify (DL ¶20-21, ¶45).
• Purpose (c) is argued under (g)(i) "fundamentally undermine", not the grey belt definition (DL ¶18-19).
• Weak on location: (g)(iii) passed with a four-a-day bus "having regard to its rural situation", though the walking route was tested (DL ¶22).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Non-determination appeal; council's putative reasons were Green Belt, CA and highways (DL 3)
• Amended pitched-roof plans rejected under the Holborn Studios tests (DL 5-6)
• Earlier lawful development certificate appeal (APP/M1595/X/19/3231066) found no lawful B8 use; not decisive on PDL (DL 13)
• Self-build claimed but no securing mechanism, so no weight (DL 45)
• Settings of Grade I St Michael's Church and nearby Grade II houses unaffected (DL 36-38)
• Costs application by the appellant subject of a separate decision (DL 2), not in the corpus
• Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.