- Decision
- dismissed, 24 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: P B Jarvis
- Authority
- Brentwood (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6010567
- Application reference
- 26/00233/HHA
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Detached outbuilding (home gym and shower) incidental to dwelling
- Site context
- green belt, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(b), GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- Brentwood Local Plan 2016-2033 MG02, BE16
- Main issues
- inappropriate development; openness; listed building setting; VSC
Summary
A small detached gym outbuilding beside an already-doubled dwelling. The inspector treated it as an extension (Storer; Dawe). Cumulatively it was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), so inappropriate. Openness was preserved and the listed farmhouse setting was unharmed, but it was dismissed for want of VSC.
Issues and findings
- Transition: the policies "have not materially changed therefore further comments have not been invited" (DL ¶2).
- GB7(1)(b): FAIL. The outbuilding "would be a 'normal domestic adjunct' … Therefore, it can be considered to comprise an extension to the dwelling" (DL ¶8). "The proposal would add a further 30 sqm. resulting in a dwelling around 140% larger than the original … a disproportionate increase" (DL ¶9).
- Openness preserved: "Green Belt openness would be preserved" (DL ¶14).
- VSC: "The appellant also suggests that the harm arising from inappropriateness … would be limited. However, that conflicts with the Framework which directs that any Green Belt harm is to be given substantial weight" (DL ¶20).
Planning balance
GB6(2). Neutral factors (modest size, design, no openness harm) could not clearly outweigh the substantial definitional harm (DL ¶19-22).
What made the difference
Cumulative size against the original dwelling. The GB7(1)(e) garden-PDL route used in PINS-6012162 was not argued.
Transferable points
- A detached incidental outbuilding can be assessed as an "extension" under GB7(1)(b), and past extensions count cumulatively against the original (DL ¶7-9).
- Inappropriateness alone attracts substantial weight even where openness is preserved (DL ¶14, 20).
- Compare PINS-6012162, where a garden outbuilding outside a built-up area passed as PDL redevelopment under GB7(1)(e).
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 | detached outbuilding treated as an extension (normal domestic adjunct, close to house); original already doubled, +30 sqm gives about 140% over original — disproportionate (DL 6-10) | |
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | inappropriate; openness preserved (very limited spatial effect) but no VSC; appellant's "limited harm" plea rejected (DL 11-14, 18-22) |
| HE6 | neutral | Grade II Days Farmhouse setting preserved (DL 15-17) |
Key facts
- Original dwelling already about doubled in floorspace; outbuilding adds 30 sqm (cumulative about 140%)
- Permitted development rights removed by earlier condition - no fallback
- Openness found preserved, yet appeal dismissed on inappropriateness alone
- New Framework applied without re-consultation - "policies relevant … have not materially changed"
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.