A washed-over village is not a "settlement"

Appeal 6009919 · Thurrock · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026

• AnnexB:settlement not-engaged Fobbing is washed over by the Green Belt, so not a settlement; S4 not engaged and S5 does not apply to inappropriate development (DL 49)

A covered pool and "eco annexe" on a former builder's yard behind two houses in Fobbing, a washed-over Green Belt village and conservation area. Only part of the site was PDL, so GB7(1)(e) failed. The site was grey belt and the location passed (g)(iii), but there was no evidenced unmet need for an annexe and pool, so (g)(ii) failed and the scheme was inappropriate. With openness loss and moderate conservation-area harm, VSC was not shown. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

26/01614/FUL · Stratford-on-Avon · Council (delegated) · 24 Sept 2026

• AnnexB:settlement fail "the application site is not considered to be within a settlement because it lies within the Green Belt" (p.2); the Annex B exclusion of washed-over villages applied in terms
• S5(5) not-engaged S5 "does not apply to development proposals within the Green Belt"; assessed under GB6 and GB7 (p.2); the scheme was inappropriate, so no S5(5) balance

A householder refusal in Earlswood, a village washed over by the Green Belt, issued under delegated powers on 24 September 2026. A two-storey side and rear extension would take the house from about 374 m3 to about 970 m3. The officer held that to be a disproportionate increase under GB7(1)(b), rejected the applicant's alternative case under GB7(1)(e) because a garden within a built-up area is not previously developed land, and found no very special circumstances. The report opens by applying the Annex B definition of settlement: the site is not within a settlement because it is in the Green Belt. The report is a scanned image and was read by OCR; page numbers are PDF pages.

Full summary and sources