The Granary, Colemans Farm, Toot Hill Road, Stanford Rivers

Decision

allowed, 17 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: L Reid

Authority

Epping Forest (East of England)

Appeal reference

6012043

Application reference

EPF/0128/26

Procedure

written representations

Development

Erection of a three-bay cart lodge (two open parking bays, one storage bay) within the curtilage of a dwelling

Site context

green belt, listed building setting, PDL, open countryside

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt not argued)

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

GB7(1)(e), HE6

Development plan policies

Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033 DM4, DM7, DM9

Main issues

inappropriate development and openness; setting of listed building

Summary

A three-bay cart lodge on the driveway of a modern house within a historic farmstead in the Epping Forest Green Belt. Allowed. Residential curtilage outside a built-up area counts as PDL, and a moderate loss of openness is not "substantial", so the building fell within GB7(1)(e). The setting of the Grade II farmhouse was preserved.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Both parties commented on the revised Framework (DL ¶2).
• PDL: yes. "the proposed development would be positioned within the driveway which forms part of the curtilage of the developed land, and it would be located on an area of hard standing. Furthermore, the appeal site is not within a built-up area" (DL ¶9).
• GB7(1)(e): PASS. The development "would result in a moderate degree of harm to the openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶11), which is not substantial, so the exception applies (DL ¶12). Once not inappropriate, it "should not be regarded as harmful either to the openness of the Green Belt or to the purposes" (DL ¶13).
• Heritage: preserved. "Whilst there is no longer the concept of less than substantial harm, Policy DM7 … adopts the same broad approach as Policy HE6" (DL ¶14). The site makes a "neutral contribution" to significance (DL ¶18).

Planning balance

No VSC balance was needed. Allowed with conditions, including ancillary use only.

What made the difference

Classing the driveway and curtilage as PDL (the Annex B exclusion for residential gardens applies only within built-up areas) moved the test from the new-building exceptions to GB7(1)(e). That limb tolerates up to (but not including) substantial openness harm, so a moderate harm finding was enough. The Council never addressed (e).

Transferable points

• Residential curtilage outside a built-up area is PDL, so outbuildings there can fall under GB7(1)(e) (DL ¶¶9–10).
• Under GB7(1)(e), "moderate" openness harm is compatible with the exception, and once not inappropriate no GB harm is weighed (DL ¶¶11–13).
• Inspectors will consider an exception the Council did not address (DL ¶7).
• HE6 applied without the "less than substantial" label; local heritage policy using the old approach is still "consistent" and given full weight (DL ¶14).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• The Granary is a large modern detached house replacing an agricultural shed within a historic farmstead
• Cart lodge sited on existing driveway hardstanding within the residential curtilage, outside any built-up area
• Council itself assessed openness harm as moderate
• Inspector notes "there is no longer the concept of less than substantial harm" but DM7 is consistent with HE6

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.