Housing on previously developed land: openness

Appeal 6011972 · Tandridge · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026 · 8 homes

• GB7(1)(e) fail agreed PDL; footprint and volume fall, but eight taller (8.6 m), bulkier two-storey houses with curtilages and roads → substantial harm to openness (DL 6-11)

Eight detached houses replacing equestrian buildings at Newchapel, the same area as Branford Wells (PINS-6010313). Dismissed. The site was agreed PDL, but eight two-storey houses would be taller, bulkier and more conspicuous than the low stables, so they would cause substantial harm to openness and fail GB7(1)(e). The site was also car-dependent under TR3. Moderate overall benefits against 1.92 years' supply did not clearly outweigh the harm. Grey belt (GB7(1)(g)) was not argued or considered.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007030 · Epping Forest · Appeal · 10 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) fail first-floor height with no fallback causes "local substantial harm" to openness by blocking views to trees (DL 11-15)

Replacement of a single-storey 1960s bungalow with a two-storey self-build house that more than doubles floor area and volume. It was dismissed. The new building was "materially larger" under GB7(1)(b). Prior-approval and CLD fallbacks covered the ground-floor extensions, but not the added height. The first-floor bulk would cause substantial local harm to openness, so GB7(1)(e) also failed.

Full summary and sources

TM/25/01976/PA · Tonbridge and Malling · Council committee · 19 Aug 2026 · 350 homes

• GB7(1)(e) fail majority of site is PDL (former commercial plant nursery, glasshouses) but quantum would cause substantial harm to openness

350 homes (50% affordable) on a closed commercial plant nursery on the edge of Tonbridge, in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The site is mostly PDL, but the quantum would cause substantial harm to openness, so GB7(1)(e) failed. Officers instead found it grey belt and passed all four GB7(1)(g) limbs, with the Golden Rules met. The committee approved 10-1-2 two days after the new Framework took effect, on a supplementary report whose 2024→2026 comparison table was drafted by the applicant and endorsed by officers.

Full summary and sources

25/2053/FUL · Cheshire East · Council committee · 19 Aug 2026 · 68 homes

• GB7(1)(e) fail mostly PDL but substantial harm to openness (as found on 2021 appeal for 26 dwellings)

A 68-bed care home on the enclosed, previously developed site of a burnt-out nursing home on the edge of Handforth, decided two days after the new Framework was published. Officers found the site grey belt, with unmet need met and a sustainable location. They also treated the care home as "major development involving the provision of housing", so it had to meet the Golden Rules. No affordable housing was offered, so it failed GB7(1)(g)(iv) and was inappropriate. Officers then found very special circumstances, and the committee approved. The update report added a Connectivity Tool score (59–62%) and said the 2026 NPPF made no material change.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007316 · Bury · Appeal · 17 Aug 2026 · 4 homes

• GB7(1)(e) fail 2024 para 154(g); part of site PDL but curtilage extent unproven; houses, road and domestic paraphernalia would cause substantial harm to openness (DL 10-14)

PIP for up to four dwellings on equestrian land south of the A667, accessed from the end of a ribbon of houses on the edge of Radcliffe. It was dismissed. Only part of the site was proven PDL, and the scheme would cause substantial harm to openness. The site was also not grey belt, because it strongly contributes to checking sprawl. **Although dated 17 August 2026, the decision applies the December 2024 Framework throughout.**

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010392 · Rushcliffe · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) pass parties agree the scheme is not inappropriate under "what is now Policy GB7.1.e of the Framework (previously paragraph 154g))"; inspector finds no reason to disagree; no openness assessment set out (DL 3)

A larger replacement house on a wide Green Belt plot in a linear street at Stanton on the Wolds. The parties agreed it was not inappropriate under GB7(1)(e). The only issue was character: the scheme exceeded the volume limit in the Council's Design Code Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), but the inspector found no harm and declined to apply the limit rigidly. Allowed. The self-build status, needed for the biodiversity net gain exemption, was secured by a negatively worded condition requiring a planning obligation.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010746 · Epping Forest · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• 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)

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.

Full summary and sources

26/01141/FUL · Stratford-on-Avon · Council (delegated) · 2 Oct 2026 · 3 homes

• GB7(1)(e) pass site is previously developed land "given it is already occupied by a permanent structure"; extensions "not considered to result in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt" (p.9); the report writes "GB7(e)"

Conversion of a large Victorian house, now 5 flats, into 3 houses with extensions and garaging, in the Green Belt just outside Stratford-upon-Avon. Granted under delegated powers on 2 October 2026. The officer found the scheme not inappropriate twice over: as grey belt under GB7(1)(g), and as redevelopment of previously developed land under GB7(1)(e). The loss of two dwellings was given neutral weight. The report is a scanned image and was read by OCR; page numbers are PDF pages.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008122 · Rochford · Appeal · 1 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) pass redevelopment of PDL; bulkier at first-floor and roof level but negligible change in footprint and an enclosed site, so harm to openness falls short of substantial; a replacement dwelling may be tested under (e) as well as (b) (DL 15-16)

A replacement house in the Green Belt at Canewdon was dismissed on biodiversity net gain (BNG) alone. The inspector found the scheme not inappropriate under GB7(1)(e) and cut the conflicting local replacement-dwelling policy to very limited weight. But the self-build exemption from BNG could not lawfully be secured by the occupancy condition both parties had agreed, and with no baseline evidence the statutory requirement was not met. That harm substantially outweighed the limited benefits in the S5(5) balance.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011062 · Wokingham · Appeal · 1 Oct 2026 · 13 homes

• GB7(1)(e) pass not inappropriate as partial redevelopment of PDL; also said to meet the grey belt provisions; one paragraph in Other Matters, no reasoning (DL 39)

A three-storey extra-care extension (13 net Class C2 units) at a riverside retirement village in the Green Belt opposite Henley was dismissed. The heritage harm to two conservation areas was limited and was outweighed by substantial public benefits under HE6(4). The appeal failed on living conditions: the overbearing effect and overlooking of 1 to 5 Remenham Row conflicted with DP3, there was no clear justification, and S5(2) then indicated refusal.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008176 · Cheshire East · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) pass agreed PDL; ridge 7.77 m v 5.86 m, footprint 441 v 118 sq m; moderate loss of visual openness, spatial openness improved by removing outbuildings; not substantial harm, so not inappropriate (DL 6-12)

A much larger replacement house on a Green Belt farmstead of derelict buildings. Allowed: as redevelopment of PDL causing only moderate (not substantial) harm to openness, it met GB7(1)(e) and was not inappropriate. The local replacement policy conflict (not "materially larger") got very limited weight because the policy does not reflect GB7(1)(e). An agreed permitted-development fallback would harm visual openness more.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010112 · North Yorkshire · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) pass not inappropriate; agreed between the parties; letter says "GB7(e)"; no reasoning given (DL 3, 18)

Residential use of a caravan as a manager's dwelling at a coarse fishery in the Green Belt was dismissed. The development was agreed to be not inappropriate under GB7(1)(e), so S5(5) applied. But the dwelling would be an isolated home with no essential need shown, and the inspector held that HO11 still applies in the Green Belt through S5(2) and S5(5). That conflict substantially outweighed the benefits, including substantial weight to one home at 2.6 years' supply.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009849 · Brentwood · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) pass two-storey house slots into roadside ribbon between dwellings and Wattons Works; hedge retained; moderate, not substantial, openness harm (DL 12-16)

A single dwelling in the garden of a rural house at Navestock, in the Green Belt, was allowed. Because the garden is outside a built-up area it counts as previously developed land, and the moderate harm to openness was below GB7(1)(e)'s "substantial" threshold, so the scheme was not inappropriate. The inspector found occupiers would be largely car-reliant on unlit lanes, but gave the local settlement-hierarchy conflict limited weight because of the supply shortfall, did not treat it as a TR3 conflict, and allowed the appeal under S5(5).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009621 · Epping Forest · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• GB7(1)(e) pass agreed PDL; a small porch, a 14 sqm link between outbuildings, paraphernalia and more comings and goings cause moderate, not substantial, harm to openness (DL 8-16, 18)

Splitting a large house into two and converting outbuildings into a third home on a rural lane in the Epping Forest Green Belt. Dismissed. The site is previously developed land, and the harm to openness was moderate, not substantial, so GB7(1)(e) made the scheme not inappropriate. DM4's stricter "no greater impact" (DL ¶9) test was given very limited weight. Under S5(5), though, the scheme conflicted with DP3(1) (a cramped, backland layout) and with DP3(2)(d) (poor connections to North Weald along unlit lanes without footways). DP3 is a should-be-refused policy, so S5(2) applied and the benefits were substantially outweighed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010198 · Three Rivers · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) pass no harm to openness in visual or spatial terms, so no substantial harm (DL 14-16)

A larger self-build replacement for a 1950s chalet bungalow in Heronsgate, a low-density Chartist settlement washed over by the Metropolitan Green Belt. The replacement was materially larger, so it failed GB7(1)(b). But the plot was previously developed land because Heronsgate is not a built-up area, and there would be no harm to openness, so it passed GB7(1)(e). The conservation area was preserved. Allowed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007121 · Sevenoaks · Appeal · 21 Sept 2026 · 6 homes

• GB7(1)(e) pass agreed PDL; greater bulk, spread and activity than the bungalow, but visually contained between housing and a small part of a wider parcel → not substantial harm to openness (DL 9-13)

Permission in principle for 4-6 dwellings on a bungalow plot in the Green Belt between Halstead and Knockholt. The Green Belt issues were won: grey belt with all GB7(1)(g) limbs agreed, and also compliant with GB7(1)(e) as PDL without substantial harm to openness. The appeal was dismissed anyway because the "amount" of development (at most 13 dph) failed to make efficient use of land under L3 and local policy SP7. The S5(5) balance went against the scheme.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009189 · Bromley · Appeal · 21 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• GB7(1)(e) pass equestrian buildings = PDL; similar floorspace, consolidated built form → no greater impact on openness despite increased height; GB7(e) test is "substantial harm" (DL 7-9)

Three houses replacing equestrian buildings at Biggin Hill in the London Green Belt. This was a non-determination appeal where the Council would have approved. It was allowed. The only issue was whether the August 2026 Framework changed anything. It did not: equestrian buildings are PDL, and the consolidated scheme met GB7(1)(e).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008404 · Wychavon · Appeal · 17 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) pass lawfully developed dwelling plot with permanent structures is PDL; demolition and rebuild = redevelopment; harm to openness "well short of substantial" — contained in curtilage, consolidates outbuildings, screened, no more activity (DL 12-19)

A replacement dwelling in the Worcestershire Green Belt, more than double the size of the existing house. The appeal was dismissed. The house failed GB7(1)(b) (materially larger). It was still not inappropriate development, because the rural dwelling plot is previously developed land and the harm to openness from redevelopment fell "well short of substantial" under GB7(1)(e). The appeal was lost instead on the local plan's 30% replacement-dwelling cap and on missing bat and great crested newt surveys. The N2 failure engaged S5(2).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007163 · West Lancashire · Appeal · 14 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• GB7(1)(e) pass overgrown beer garden/play area adjoining pub, functional and visual relationship still legible, so PDL curtilage; demolished volume re-used; Council agreed openness at least preserved (DL 9-14)

Conversion of a derelict Green Belt pub to a house, plus a second new house in its former beer garden built from volume released by demolition. Allowed. The beer garden counted as PDL curtilage because its functional link to the pub was still legible. The volume swap meant no substantial harm to openness, so GB7(1)(e) was met and grey belt was not needed. The design improved the non-designated heritage asset.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6004344 · Tandridge · Appeal · 27 Aug 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) pass PDL common ground; scale compared to the barn means no substantial openness harm → not inappropriate (DL 6-8)

Replacement of a storage barn with a single dwelling in the Tandridge Green Belt. As PDL redevelopment without substantial openness harm the scheme fell within GB7(1)(e), so it was not inappropriate. It was dismissed in the S5(5) balance on design, living conditions, car dependence and unevidenced surface-water drainage.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008668 · Hertsmere · Appeal · 17 Aug 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) pass decided under 2024 para 154(g) (now GB7(1)(e)); stables are PDL; access across horse-grazing field treated as PDL/ancillary; no substantial harm to openness (DL 9-15)

Replacement of a stable block with a bungalow in the Hertsmere Green Belt. Allowed. The decision is dated 17 August 2026, the day the new Framework took effect, but it was reasoned entirely under the December 2024 Framework. It is included as a transitional marker. The stables and access were treated as previously developed land (2024 ¶154(g), now GB7(1)(e)) with no substantial harm to openness, so the scheme was not inappropriate, and the ¶11(d) tilted balance favoured one dwelling.

Full summary and sources