Land and buildings south of Cowley Lane, Dronfield

Decision

dismissed, 15 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Graham Wraight

Authority

North East Derbyshire (East Midlands)

Appeal reference

6011330

Application reference

25/01050/OL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Outline (appearance, scale, layout) — demolition of equestrian buildings and replacement with one custom/self-build dwelling

Homes

1

Site context

green belt, open countryside, PDL, valued landscape

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt not argued)

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

GB7(1)(e), GB7(1)(f)(iii), GB6(2), AnnexB:previously-developed-land

Development plan policies

North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2021 SS9, SS10, SDC3, SDC12, Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan 2019 ENV1, EN2

Main issues

inappropriate development; PDL extent; Green Belt purposes; landscape; VSC

Summary

An outline scheme to replace stables with one self-build house in the North East Derbyshire Green Belt. The appeal was dismissed. The house sat on previously developed land, but its necessary garden took in paddock outside the stables' curtilage. So the site was not wholly PDL and the GB7(1)(e) exception failed. A garden is not a "material change in the use of land" under GB7(1)(f)(iii). Moderate self-build and ecology benefits did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The inspector did not seek comments because the relevant parts "have not substantively changed". Valued landscape "has been removed from the new Framework", so that part of the Council's case was not addressed (DL ¶2).
• Local plan weight. LP SS10 is inconsistent with the Framework on Green Belt PDL. Under Annex A ¶2, materially inconsistent policies get very limited weight, so Green Belt was assessed on the Framework alone (DL ¶5).
• GB7(1)(e): FAIL. "the Framework draws a limit on whether a site was previously developed land by reference to the curtilage of the building, as opposed to simply allowing for the inclusion of any area of land around a building" (DL ¶7). "It is logical to require that all of the appeal site must be PDL to qualify for the exception set out under Policy GB7e of the Framework, and that requirement is not met" (DL ¶9).
• GB7(1)(f)(iii): FAIL. "caselaw has established that residential uses do not fall within this exception, and that the category is not an open ended one" (DL ¶8, citing Kingston v SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin)).
• Openness. There would be harm, "but substantial harm is a high threshold" and it was not reached (DL ¶10).
• Purposes. There would be minor encroachment only (DL ¶13).
• Landscape. Localised harm in the Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity, below the "significant harm" bar in SDC3 (DL ¶17).

Planning balance

GB6(2) VSC. Self-build and housing supply got moderate weight: "Whilst I am mindful of the weighting set out in Policy HO7 … in the absence of evidenced accommodation needs of the community being provided" (DL ¶19). Ecology also got moderate weight. Visual consolidation, traffic reduction, good design and amenity were neutral or given no weight (DL ¶20-21). The benefits "do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt" (DL ¶24).

What made the difference

The garden. Had the red line been confined to the squared-off stable curtilage, or had that curtilage been big enough for adequate amenity space, the scheme would probably have passed GB7(1)(e). Openness harm was expressly found to be below the substantial threshold. The mixed PDL/non-PDL site made it inappropriate, and moderate benefits cannot outweigh substantial Green Belt harm.

Transferable points

• PDL stops at the curtilage of the building. Functionally linked grazing land beyond is not PDL (DL ¶7).
• To use GB7(1)(e), the whole site must be PDL. Essential non-PDL garden land defeats the exception (DL ¶9).
• A residential garden is not a GB7(1)(f)(iii) material change of use (Kingston) (DL ¶8).
• Local Green Belt PDL policies inconsistent with the 2026 Framework get very limited weight under Annex A ¶2 (DL ¶5).
• HO7's "substantial weight" is not automatic. Without evidence of the needs being met, a single self-build dwelling got moderate weight (DL ¶19).
• Valued landscape arguments fall away under the 2026 Framework (DL ¶2).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• The Framework says PDL extends only to the curtilage of a building. The fenced, squared-off area around the stables was that curtilage; the paddock beyond was not
• The dwelling was sited on the PDL, but its essential garden was on non-PDL land and "could not be severed"
• A neighbouring stables-to-dwelling scheme (25/00547/FL) was approved because the Council treated all of that site as PDL
• Valued landscape arguments dropped because the 2026 Framework no longer refers to valued landscapes (DL 2)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.