# 3 Nursery, Hoe Lane, Nazeing (vehicle storage)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Pattison
- **Authority:** Epping Forest (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010709
- **Application reference:** EPF/0353/26
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Retrospective use of 1.3 ha of land for storage of up to 120 vehicles awaiting repair (B8 open storage)
- **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted)
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB6(2)
- **Development plan policies:** Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033 (2023) DM4, E1, H3
- **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, VSC
- **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, unmet-need-type-specific, unmet-need-evidence-fail, non-housing-grey-belt, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, retrospective, infill-rejected, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Retrospective vehicle storage on 1.3 ha of Green Belt at Nazeing for a truck repair business. The land was accepted as grey belt, but GB7(1)(g)(ii) failed: the evidence showed only this operator's difficulty finding premises, not an unmet need for B8 storage in the area. As inappropriate development with moderate openness harm, very special circumstances were not shown.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "During the appeal the main parties were invited to comment on the relevance of the revised Framework" (DL ¶2).
- **Infilling in a village: FAIL.** "when viewed 'from the ground' the nearest residential properties are significantly dispersed and there is not a discernible group of closely associated residential buildings" (DL ¶9).
- **Grey belt: PASS** (DL ¶14).
- **(g)(ii) unmet need: FAIL.** "In my view, Policy GB7.g.ii requires an assessment of the need for the specific type of development proposed, rather than whether it is required at this particular location" (DL ¶20). "there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the overall supply of B8 land is insufficient to meet current demand" (DL ¶22).
- **Openness: moderate harm** (DL ¶25).

## Planning balance
GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to inappropriateness and to openness harm; benefits "would be substantial overall"; "the other considerations in relation to the proposal do not clearly outweigh the harm" (DL ¶35).

## What made the difference
Need evidence for the land-use type. Occupancy rates, vacancy data and the delivery status of B8 allocations (E2(2) market signals) were missing. An operator-specific search is not evidence of an area-wide unmet need.

## Transferable points
- For non-housing grey belt, (g)(ii) needs evidence of unmet need for the type of use (market signals under E2(2)), not the applicant's own difficulty (DL ¶19–22).
- Village status for GB7(1)(c) is judged on the ground, and a site near an industrial estate but away from grouped houses is not in a village (DL ¶8–9).
- Openness harm from parked vehicles counts even where public views are filtered (DL ¶25).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(c): fail.** judged on the ground (Wood v SSCLG); no discernible group of houses, so not within a village; 1.3 ha / 120 vehicles not "limited infilling" (DL 7-12)
- **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** not PDL (previous appeal); council accepts no strong contribution to (a), (b), (d) (DL 13-14)
- **GB7(1)(g)(ii): fail.** need must be for the type of development (B8), not this operator at this place; no market signals, occupancy or allocation-delivery evidence per E2(2) (DL 15-23)
- **E2(2): fail.** market signals of undersupply within catchment required to show unmet need (DL 19-22)
- **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** inappropriate; moderate visual and spatial openness harm; benefits substantial overall but VSC not shown (DL 25, 34-35)
- **E2: benefit (substantial weight).** 34 jobs; substantial weight to economic benefits noted, but location benefit limited (DL 27-29, 35)
- **N6: not-engaged.** Epping Forest SAC appropriate assessment not needed as appeal dismissed (DL 31-32)

## Key facts
- Previous appeal on the site dismissed (APP/J1535/W/25/3376265) finding not PDL and moderate openness harm (DL 13, 25)
- Appellant's HQ at Hoddesdon too small; extensive site search, but discounted for operator-specific reasons (DL 16-18, 20)
- Adjacent Birchwood Industrial Estate (DL 9)
- Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010709
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a83b76c2-7806-4ced-a957-c2c84f85dcab

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010709.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.