# Rose Cottage, Kentish Lane, Hatfield

- **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
- **Tags:** householder-gb, replacement-building-not-permanent, replacement-dwelling-materially-larger, pdl-e-limb, vsc-not-shown, retrospective

## 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
- **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 weight).** 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010292
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6711bee3-d0cc-4714-9f8d-80b1ceaacc38

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010292.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.