# Maisie Cottage, Bottrells Lane, Chalfont St Giles (stable to dwelling)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A O'Neill
- **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6011889
- **Application reference:** PL/25/4593/FA
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Conversion and single-storey side extension of a stable building to a one-bedroom dwelling, with a new garden, gravel driveway and boundary hedging
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** green-belt, national-landscape, open-countryside, rural-lane
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued)
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(f)(iii), N4
- **Development plan policies:** Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 GB2, GB11, LSQ1, Core Strategy for Chiltern District 2011 CS22
- **Main issues:** whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt and effect on openness, Chilterns National Landscape, very special circumstances
- **Tags:** vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, residential-curtilage, national-landscape, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, conversion, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, previous-appeal-followed

## Summary
Conversion and extension of a stable to a one-bedroom dwelling in the Green Belt and the Chilterns National Landscape was dismissed, for the third time on this site. The building works fell within GB7(1)(b). The new garden and driveway did not: they were a change of use of open grassland to residential use, which no GB7 exception covers. That made the proposal inappropriate development, and one dwelling with a modest biodiversity gain did not amount to very special circumstances.

## Issues and findings
- **Building: GB7(1)(b) PASS.** "There is no dispute between the main parties that the conversion and extension of the existing stable on the site would fall within the exception set out in Framework Policy GB7(1)(b)" (DL ¶5).
- **Curtilage: inappropriate.** "Reference is made to the exception in Framework policy GB7(f)(iii) which concerns material changes in the use of land. However, case law … has confirmed that residential uses do not fall within this this exception" (DL ¶7). "I have not been directed to any other exception in the Framework or the LP which would apply to this element of the proposal. As such, it would be inappropriate development" (DL ¶7).
- **Openness: HARM.** "The resultant domestication of the land and the introduction of visual clutter would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt in spatial and visual terms" (DL ¶8).
- **Plan weight.** "LP Policy GB11 is more restrictive than the Framework and so, in line with Annex A, paragraph 2 of the Framework, this policy is given very limited weight" (DL ¶4).
- **National Landscape, N4: CONFLICT.** "the site is relatively small in the wider landscape, so the overall magnitude of harm would be limited" (DL ¶18). "Nevertheless, the proposal would fail to conserve or enhance the natural beauty and special qualities of the Chilterns National Landscape" (DL ¶19).
- **S5 not available.** "Framework Policy S5 allows for certain forms of development outside settlements, including that which would address an evidenced unmet need (S5(1)(j)). However, S5(5) states that this policy does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt" (DL ¶23).
- **Housing weight.** "in line with Framework Policy HO7, I attribute substantial weight to the benefits of providing a home which could contribute towards meeting evidenced housing needs" (DL ¶23).

## Planning balance
GB6(2) very special circumstances. Harm: inappropriateness and loss of openness (substantial weight) and failure to conserve the National Landscape (substantial weight under N4). Other considerations: one home (substantial weight under HO7, though the benefit is called limited) and biodiversity net gain (moderate). These "are consequently not considerations that clearly outweigh the harm arising from inappropriateness and other harm" (DL ¶23).

## What made the difference
The garden. The conversion on its own was not inappropriate, but a dwelling needs a curtilage, and enclosing open grassland as garden and drive is a residential change of use that GB7 does not cover. Making the garden as small as possible did not help: the issue was the category, not the size. Grey belt under GB7(1)(g) was not argued. A scheme whose curtilage stayed within land already in the building's use, or a successful grey belt case, would have been needed.

## Transferable points
- A conversion can pass GB7(1)(b) while the new garden and driveway around it are inappropriate development; each element is tested against the exceptions (DL ¶5-7).
- GB7(1)(f)(iii) (material changes of use) does not cover a change to residential use, following Kingston upon Thames v SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin) (DL ¶7).
- Even a small, hedged curtilage harms openness spatially; screening does not remove the spatial effect (DL ¶9-11).
- S5(1)(j) cannot be used in the Green Belt because of S5(5), even with a supply shortfall (DL ¶23).
- One home was given substantial weight under HO7 and still did not clearly outweigh Green Belt and National Landscape harm (DL ¶23).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(b): pass.** conversion and extension of the stable agreed to fall within the exception; inspector saw no reason to differ (DL 5)
- **GB7(1)(f)(iii): fail.** new garden and driveway are a change of use of undeveloped grassland to residential use; residential uses are outside the material-change-of-use exception (RB Kingston upon Thames v SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin)); no other exception applies; the letter writes "GB7(f)(iii)" (DL 6-7)
- **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate development; domestic paraphernalia and parking would fail to preserve openness in spatial and visual terms; a 2024 inspector had called the effect of a similar curtilage limited but harmful (DL 8-12, 22-23)
- **GB6(2): fail.** very special circumstances do not exist; one dwelling and biodiversity gain do not clearly outweigh the harm (DL 23)
- **N4: conflict (substantial weight).** Chilterns National Landscape; domestication of the land erodes rural character; overall magnitude of harm limited because the site is small; substantial weight to conserving and enhancing natural beauty (DL 13, 17-19, 23)
- **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** Local Plan GB11 (residential reuse of Green Belt buildings, subject to criteria) is more restrictive than the Framework; very limited weight under Annex A paragraph 2; conflict with GB2 and GB11 is still recorded at DL 12 (DL 4, 12)
- **S5(1)(j): not-engaged.** supply shortfall acknowledged, but S5(5) means S5 does not apply in the Green Belt (DL 23)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one dwelling; contribution described as limited, but given substantial weight in light of the supply position and HO7 (DL 20, 23)
- **N2 (BNG): benefit (moderate weight).** appropriate provision for biodiversity net gain, of modest scale; overcomes a reason for the 2025 dismissal (DL 21)

## Key facts
- Two earlier appeals for similar schemes on the site were dismissed (APP/X0415/W/24/3336436, 9 August 2024; APP/X0415/W/25/3363913, 2 September 2025); both found a residential curtilage would harm openness (DL 10-11)
- The curtilage is smaller than in the 2025 appeal and similar to the 2024 one; the appellant said it was the smallest possible (DL 10-11)
- Site is in the Penn Rolling Farmland landscape character area; sparse development, fields to the north and woodland to the south (DL 14-15)
- The Council cannot demonstrate an adequate housing land supply; no figure is given (DL 23)
- The driveway would be readily visible from Bottrells Lane; hedging would limit views of the garden but not the spatial effect (DL 9)
- No switch paragraph; the 2026 Framework is applied by policy code throughout

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011889

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011889.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.