- Decision
- dismissed, 9 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: John Felgate
- Authority
- Welwyn Hatfield (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6010292
- Application reference
- 6/2025/2623/HOUSE
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Retrospective replacement of a garden outbuilding (hobby vehicle/aircraft store) with a larger steel-framed building
- Site context
- green belt, rural lane
- Green Belt
- Yes
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(b), GB7(1)(e), GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- Welwyn Hatfield Borough Local Plan 2023 SADM 11, SADM 34, SP9
- Main issues
- Green Belt; character and appearance; living conditions
Summary
A retrospective, part-built replacement of a flimsy garden shed with a much taller steel-framed building in the Hertfordshire Green Belt. The appeal was dismissed. It failed every route: GB7(1)(b) replacement (materially larger, and the old shed was not "permanent and substantial"), GB7(1)(e) PDL (substantial harm to openness), and GB7(1)(b) extension (the cumulative threshold was already passed).
Issues and findings
- Transition. The parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶4).
- GB7(1)(b) replacement: FAIL on two grounds. Size: "These changes in the shape and orientation of the roof add significantly to the new building's overall height and volume" (DL ¶10). Permanence: "the original building was not of permanent or substantial construction, but was in fact essentially always a short-life structure" (DL ¶11).
- GB7(1)(e): FAIL. "As residential garden land outside any built-up area, the appeal site could potentially be considered as previously developed land (PDL) … the increase in built volume would result in a considerable loss of openness … the resultant harm to the green belt would be substantial" (DL ¶13).
- Extension route: FAIL. The cumulative threshold was already passed (DL ¶14).
Planning balance
GB6(2). There were no other considerations of any significant weight. Removing the old shed was not a benefit that depended on this scheme (DL ¶24-25).
What made the difference
Height. The same footprint with more than double the eaves height was materially larger. And the old shed's construction ruled out the replacement exception entirely.
Transferable points
- The "permanent and substantial construction" requirement in GB7(1)(b) applies to replacements. A lightweight shed that was never permanent cannot found a replacement (DL ¶8, ¶11).
- Height and roof form alone can make a same-footprint replacement "materially larger" (DL ¶10).
- Rural residential gardens (outside built-up areas) can be PDL for GB7(1)(e), but a large volume increase is still substantial harm (DL ¶13).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(b) | fail | replacement materially larger (eaves 2m→4.6m, ridge 4.6m→5.8m, roof turned 90°); and former timber/plywood/plastic shed was not of permanent and substantial construction (DL 8-12) | |
| GB7(1)(e) | fail | rural residential garden potentially PDL, but considerable volume increase = substantial harm to openness (DL 13) | |
| GB7(1)(b) | fail | as a detached "extension", cumulative additions threshold already passed (DL 14) | |
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | inappropriateness and substantial loss of openness (DL 15) |
| DP3 | harm | visually jarring, out of scale, transverse ridge (LP SP9) (DL 16-20) |
Key facts
- The former shed (c.12 m x 6 m, erected 1995) had been demolished. It was plywood and timber, with plastic-sheet windows, and was not watertight
- The new building had the same footprint but was much taller
- The appellant was unaware permission was needed. The inspector accepted this but it did not help
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.