# Castleton, Days Lane, Doddinghurst

- **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
- **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, outbuilding-as-extension, vsc-not-shown, householder, transitional-no-consultation

## 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
- **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 weight).** 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010567
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2a8b971f-d0c3-4efe-90fe-ef892ed182ea

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010567.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.