# Canons, Hobbs Cross Road, Matching (replacement dwelling, Green Belt)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 2 October 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Pearce
- **Authority:** Epping Forest (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010746
- **Application reference:** EPF/0578/26
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Demolition of the existing house and garage and erection of a new detached dwelling with parking and amenity space
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** green-belt, listed-building-setting, PDL, open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued)
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE6(3)
- **Development plan policies:** Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2031 SP5, DM4, DM7, DM9
- **Main issues:** inappropriate development, setting of a listed building, character and appearance
- **Tags:** not-inappropriate, pdl-e-limb, pdl-rural-garden, replacement-dwelling-materially-larger, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-graded, design-refusal, fallback-rejected, plan-led, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
A much larger replacement house in the Green Belt at Matching. It failed the replacement-building category GB7(1)(b) as materially larger (floorspace up 141.9%), but passed GB7(1)(e): the plot is previously developed land and the harm to openness was moderate, not substantial. So it was not inappropriate. It was still dismissed, because its scale and urban design caused low harm to the setting of a Grade II listed thatched house nearby with no public benefits to weigh against it, and harmed the rural character of the row.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "the parties have been provided with an opportunity to comment on the revised Framework" (DL ¶2).
- **GB7(1)(b) replacement: FAIL.** "Taken together, the new building would be materially larger than the one it would replace" (DL ¶8).
- **GB7(1)(e) previously developed land: PASS.** "the site would be previously developed land and the proposal for a replacement detached dwelling would comprise a redevelopment" (DL ¶10). "Given that the proposal would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, the development would accord with criterion e of Policy GB7 of the Framework" (DL ¶15).
- **Not inappropriate.** "Therefore, the proposal is not inappropriate development, as per Policy GB7 of the Framework" (DL ¶16).
- **Heritage, HE5(2) degree of harm.** "The proposal would result in a low degree of harm, given the limited contribution that the appeal site makes to the significance of Inglenook" (DL ¶21).
- **HE6(4): FAIL.** "there is no substantive evidence before me that demonstrates the existing dwelling could not achieve a similar level of living and energy standards and accessibility" (DL ¶23). "public benefits would not outweigh the harm identified" (DL ¶23).
- **HE6(1) and HE6(3).** "Whilst the level of harm is at the lower level, Policy HE6 states that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight and that substantial weight should be given to the asset’s conservation" (DL ¶30).
- **Character: CONFLICT (local DM9).** "its scale and overtly urban design would fail to reflect the prevailing scale and prevailing rural character of the area" (DL ¶27).
- **Fallback: limited weight.** No "substantive details, including plans or a Lawful Development Certificate" (DL ¶31).

## Planning balance
Plan-led (s38(6)), after HE6(4). "The Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making" (DL ¶29). Limited benefits against low heritage harm, character harm and plan conflict (DL ¶33). The letter does not run the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance that follows a not-inappropriate finding; with HE6(4) failed, the result would be the same.

## What made the difference
Passing the Green Belt test did not save the scheme. The same bulk that made it "materially larger" harmed the listed building's rural setting, and a one-for-one replacement has no housing benefit to put in the HE6(4) balance.

## Transferable points
- GB7 categories are alternatives: a replacement dwelling that fails (b) as materially larger can pass (e) as redevelopment of previously developed land if openness harm is below substantial (DL ¶8, ¶15–16).
- A residential plot outside a built-up area is previously developed land; the garden exclusion applies only in built-up areas (DL ¶10).
- A 141.9% floorspace increase caused "moderate" openness harm, which is not "substantial harm" under (e) (DL ¶7, ¶15).
- A one-for-one replacement has no housing-supply benefit for HE6(4); energy and accessibility gains count only if the existing building could not achieve them (DL ¶23).
- Low harm to a Grade II setting beat a single replacement dwelling (DL ¶21, ¶30, ¶33).
- A permitted development fallback needs plans or a lawful development certificate to show a realistic prospect (DL ¶31).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(b): fail.** footprint 38.8% larger and floorspace 479 sq m, an increase of 141.9% (Council's undisputed figures); substantial width and depth; "materially larger than the one it would replace" (DL 6-8)
- **GB7(1)(e): pass.** site is previously developed land (not within a built-up area, so the garden exclusion does not apply) and a replacement dwelling is redevelopment; considerable spatial and limited visual openness harm, "moderate" overall and not substantial, so not inappropriate (DL 9-16)
- **AnnexB:PDL: pass.** letter cites the definition as "Annex 2 of the Framework" (the 2024 numbering); curtilage outside a built-up area is PDL (DL 10)
- **HE5(2): harm.** letter says "Policy HE5 2"; low degree of harm to the significance of Grade II Inglenook through its setting, from the scale, gables, glazing and hardstanding eroding the rural context (DL 19-21)
- **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to the asset's conservation stated (DL 22, 30)
- **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** harm "at the lower level" is still a matter of considerable importance and weight (DL 30)
- **HE6(4): fail.** one-for-one replacement adds nothing to housing supply; modern living and energy standards not shown to be unachievable in the existing dwelling; no other public benefits (DL 22-23)
- **DP3: conflict.** mapped: Framework design policy not cited; substantially larger, bulkier dwelling of overtly urban design conflicts with local DM9 (DL 26-28)
- **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): neutral.** no mechanism to secure self-build, so the mandatory biodiversity gain condition would apply; not pursued as dismissed (DL 34-35)

## Key facts
- Footprint +38.8%, floorspace 479 sq m (+141.9%) including a basement; height difference limited (DL 7-8)
- Fails GB7(1)(b) as materially larger, but passes GB7(1)(e) as redevelopment of previously developed land with moderate, not substantial, openness harm (DL 8, 15-16)
- Grade II Inglenook is a sixteenth century thatched hall house in the same row; the site makes a limited contribution to its setting (DL 18-19, 21)
- Permitted development fallback given limited weight - no plans or lawful development certificate, and effects not shown to be comparable (DL 31)
- Neglect of the existing dwelling given minimal weight; building generally without major structural defect (DL 32)
- No S5(5) balance is run after the not-inappropriate finding; decided plan-led on heritage and character (DL 29-33)
- Epping Forest SAC - one-for-one replacement, no likely significant effect (DL 36)
- Parties given the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010746
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4f2d24d8-a3bf-40ef-84f5-4036616b6622

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010746.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.