- Decision
- dismissed, 11 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: K E Down
- Authority
- Epping Forest (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6012591
- Application reference
- EPF/0385/26
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Two-storey side extension incorporating garage, and large detached garage/domestic and smallholding store
- Site context
- green belt, open countryside
- Green Belt
- Yes
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(b), GB7(1)(e), GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033 (2023) DM4, DM9
- Main issues
- inappropriate development; openness; character; VSC
Summary
A two-storey side extension and a large detached garage/store at a rural house in the Epping Forest Green Belt. The appeal was dismissed. The extension was disproportionate. The outbuilding was too remote, large and functionally separate to count as an extension, so it was a new building. The PDL route under GB7(1)(e) also failed on substantial harm to openness.
Issues and findings
- Extension: disproportionate. "The proposed extension would overwhelm the existing dwelling … a very large and incongruous addition" (DL ¶6). "the extension must be judged against the size of the original dwelling as it existed on 1 July 1948", not the size of the plot (DL ¶8).
- GB7(1)(e). "the detrimental effect on the openness of the Green Belt would be sufficient that this category would not apply" (DL ¶7).
- Outbuilding. "owing to the distance of separation from the host dwelling, the scale of the building and its proposed use … it would lack the degree of physical and functional association with and subordination to the host dwelling to be considered as an extension" (DL ¶9).
- Openness. "significant harm to both the spatial and visual openness" (DL ¶13).
Planning balance
GB6(2). The need for space got modest weight and did not clearly outweigh (DL ¶18-19).
What made the difference
Scale. A two-storey addition at full ridge height, together with a very long outbuilding serving a smallholding, went well beyond domestic proportionality.
Transferable points
- Outbuildings count as extensions only where they are a normal domestic adjunct, physically and functionally associated with and subordinate to the house (DL ¶9).
- Plot size is irrelevant to GB7(1)(b). The comparison is with the 1948 original (DL ¶8).
- The GB7(1)(e) PDL route will not rescue a disproportionate householder scheme that causes substantial openness harm (DL ¶7).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(b) | fail | two-storey side extension at full ridge height, projecting beyond rear, "overwhelm the existing dwelling" → disproportionate vs 1948 original; plot size irrelevant (DL 6, 8) | |
| GB7(1)(e) | fail | Council-raised PDL route rejected because effect on openness would be substantial (DL 7) | |
| GB7(1)(b) | fail | detached outbuilding too distant, large and functionally separate (smallholding machinery) to be an "extension" → new building, inappropriate (DL 9) | |
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | substantial / significant spatial and visual loss of openness (DL 11-13) |
| DP3 | harm | bulky incongruous extension, dominant outbuilding (LP DM9) (DL 14-16) |
Key facts
- Older double-fronted house on a large plot in open countryside, with an existing porch, garage, store and rear extensions
- Future family and multigenerational needs were speculative. Security needs after a burglary were unexplained. Modest weight only
Sources
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.