Appeal 6000930

The appeal is dismissed.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and development plan policy; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area; and • if the development would be inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.

The Framework states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate development unless it falls within one of the listed exceptions. The appellant contends that the proposal would fall within two of these exceptions: limited infilling in a village under exception (e) of paragraph 154 and the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land under exception (g). I address each in turn.

With regards to exception (e), this provision allows for limited infilling in villages. The appeal site comprises a large residential plot containing a single dwelling and associated domestic structures set back from the road. It lies outside of the defined settlement boundary of [site address] . Although there are other dwellings in the vicinity, the pattern of development along this stretch of road is loose and dispersed, with substantial gaps between buildings and significant areas of open land between plots.

The settlement of [site address] lies to the south-east of the site, beyond intervening open fields. It is a small settlement featuring a high street with a village hall, public houses, bus stops and other amenities. The streets within the settlement feature pavements and street lighting and the pattern of development is characterised by dwellings sited in relative proximity to one another along linear building lines.

[site address] and the nearby [address] are small roads without pavements or streetlighting. The dwellings vary in scale, style and position within their plots. The grain of development is less dense and uniform than in [site address] , featuring larger plots and intervening woodland (such as the land directly to the north of the appeal site). [site address] and [address] appear less suburban and have more the appearance and characteristics of a country lane.

In this context, the appeal site does not form part of a compact village frontage where the concept of infilling between closely related buildings would reasonably apply. Instead, it sits within a sporadic ribbon of development within a predominantly semi-rural landscape. The proposed development of four substantial dwellings across the plot would therefore represent a significant intensification of built form rather than the limited infilling of a small gap within a developed frontage. Consequently, the proposal cannot reasonably be described as limited infilling in a village for the purposes of paragraph 154(e) of the Framework.

The appellant also relies on exception (g) of paragraph 154 which permits the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

The glossary of the Framework defines previously developed land as land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed). The appeal site contains a dwelling, garage, swimming pool, and several associated domestic outbuildings and therefore includes previously developed areas. However, the existing built form is mainly concentrated along the western boundary of the site, with large areas of the plot remaining open and comprising landscaped garden land. The proposal would replace the existing development with four detached dwellings, each with its own curtilage, together with associated access drives, parking areas and domestic infrastructure spread across the site. This would materially increase both the footprint and the spatial distribution of built development across the plot. In particular, development would extend across areas that are currently open and free from built form.

Openness is identified in the Framework as one of the Green Belt’s essential characteristics. It has been identified as being formed of both spatial and visual aspects. The proposal would result in a clear increase in the extent and spread of development within the site. The total volume of development proposed would be considerable and would exceed what currently exists within the site. It would thus materially impact on openness in a spatial aspect resulting in harm to the Green Belt.

In visual terms, the proposed dwellings would be highly noticeable in light of their bulk, height and overall scale. Whilst the appellant considers that the site is a relatively enclosed plot of land, the boundary hedges along the highway frontage are not particularly tall. The absence of significant vegetation along the eastern boundary means the site is quite open and that the proposed dwellings would be readily apparent from [site address] . The additional built form would also be noticeable when viewed from the open countryside to the east as well as from neighbouring plots, through gaps in vegetation and during the winter months.

The proposed buildings would significantly erode the spatial and visual openness of the site, causing substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Accordingly, the proposal would not satisfy the exception set out in paragraph 154(g) of the Framework.

Both main parties agree that the appeal site comprises Grey Belt land. Criterion (a) of paragraph 155 of the Framework requires that the development of Grey Belt land does not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the Green Belt. In this regard, particular relevance arises in relation to the purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The appeal site currently contains substantial areas of open garden land forming part of the wider rural landscape along this stretch of [site address] . Whilst the site features existing buildings and is flanked by neighbouring dwellings, it is mostly characterised by verdant garden land. It sits immediately adjacent to open agricultural fields to the east, and the existing garden land forms a transitional space between the sporadic built development along [site address] and the surrounding countryside. In this way, the openness of the site softens the edge between developed and undeveloped land and helps maintain the open rural character of the Green Belt.

The proposal would erode this transitional quality. It would materially intensify the residential use of the land and expand built form and domestic activity across areas that are presently open. In doing so, the development would represent a clear encroachment of more intensive residential development within the countryside. I therefore find that the proposal would fundamentally undermine the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and would fail to satisfy criterion (a) of paragraph 155.

Criterion (b) requires that there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. In this respect, the Council acknowledges that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Consequently, I accept that there is a demonstrable unmet need for additional housing and that the proposal would contribute, albeit modestly, to addressing that need. Criterion (c), however, requires that the development is located in a sustainable location. The appeal site lies in a predominantly rural area. Whilst there are some facilities within the wider area, the number of shops and services within convenient walking distance of the site is limited. Public transport provision is also relatively restricted, with bus services operating infrequently. As a result, future occupants of the proposed dwellings would be likely to rely heavily on private vehicles to access day-to-day services, employment and facilities. I therefore find that the site does not represent a sustainable location for the scale of residential development proposed.

Accordingly, notwithstanding the acknowledged housing need, the proposal would fail to satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph 155 of the Framework. The proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would not accord with the exemptions outlined at Paragraph 154 of the Framework. It would also conflict with Policies CSSP1, CSSP4, and Policy PMD6 of the adopted Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development 2015 (the Local Plan)1 insofar as they seek to ensure that the Green Belt is preserved from inappropriate development.

The appeal site comprises a single detached dwelling set within a large plot along [site address] . The site contains the main dwelling and associated domestic structures, including a swimming pool and outbuildings, with substantial areas of open garden land surrounding them. The plot features several mature trees and is bounded by mature hedgerows which contribute to a verdant setting. The surrounding area is characterised by a loose and spacious pattern of development, with detached dwellings typically set within large plots and separated by vegetation and open land. Along [site address] , development appears sporadic and dispersed rather than forming a continuous built frontage. The wider context includes significant areas of agricultural land, paddocks and pockets of woodland which reinforce the semi-rural character of the locality.

The proposal would replace the existing dwelling with four detached dwellings arranged across the site, each with associated accesses, driveways, parking areas and domestic curtilage. Whilst the proposed houses would broadly reflect the scale and form of large detached dwellings found in the area, the principal change arising from the proposal would be the extent and distribution of built development across the plot. The introduction of four dwellings would substantially increase the intensity of residential development on the site and would spread built form and associated domestic activity across areas of the site that are currently open. This would materially reduce the spaciousness that presently characterises the plot and would introduce a noticeably denser form of development within this part of [site address] .

The appellant has submitted a density plan and contends that the proposal would reflect the character of the surrounding area and that the spacious layout of the scheme would respect the prevailing pattern of development. It is also argued that the proposal would retain a generous amount of landscaping and open space within the site. However, notwithstanding the proposed landscaping and the 1 Thurrock Council, Local Development Framework, [name] and Policies for Management of Development (as amended), adopted January 2015. relatively large size of the individual plots, the provision of four dwellings on land that currently accommodates a single dwelling would represent a clear intensification of development. The resulting layout would alter the spatial character of the site from that of a single dwelling within expansive grounds to a linear cluster of dwellings occupying much of the plot. This would drastically alter the appearance of the site, resulting in a much more urbanised configuration. In my view, this would appear incongruous when seen in the context of the loose and dispersed pattern of development along this part of [site address] .

The appellant also relies on the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), which concludes that the development would result in limited visual impacts and that the existing boundary vegetation would provide effective screening. Whilst the established boundary planting would limit certain views of the site, there are very few mature trees along the frontage that provide effective screening. The front hedge along the eastern boundary is not particularly tall and, with the accesses proposed for each new dwelling, there would be several gaps along [site address] offering views of the buildings.

Furthermore, I have had regard to the photomontages provided within the LVIA. From several locations, including from [address] and [address] (views 11 to 13), the development would be noticeable. [address], the appeal site currently appears as a wide verdant gap between dwellings. The outline of the proposed dwellings clearly demonstrates that they would be perceptible and would have an urbanising effect on this part of [site address] , eroding its verdant and open character, and impacting views from the open countryside to the east. I do not agree with the LVIA’s assessment that the significance of the effect would be low.

The proposed dwellings would also be readily apparent to pedestrians and vehicles travelling in a northerly direction along [site address] , particularly when approaching the site from the south-east, when level with the neighbouring property at [name] (view 5). From this direction, and due to the proposed arrangement of the dwellings within the plot, they would appear as a near continuous expanse of built form. This would significantly alter the spacious and sylvan visual character of the appeal site, and would therefore negatively impact the streetscene.

The assessment before me indicates that the proposal would introduce a greater extent of built form within the plot and would change the way in which the site is perceived within the wider landscape. Even where views are filtered or partially contained, the introduction of multiple dwellings and associated domestic activity would nonetheless erode the currently spacious and verdant setting of the site. I therefore do not share the LVIA’s overall conclusion that the development would have only a limited effect on landscape character.

Whilst the design of the individual buildings may draw on features found locally, the principal harm arises not from the detailed architectural treatment of the dwellings but from the extent of built form proposed and the resulting intensification of development across the site. Consequently, even bespoke and well-designed buildings would not overcome the more fundamental concern regarding the erosion of the spacious character of the plot and the surrounding area.

Taking these matters together, I find that the proposed development would introduce a denser and more urbanised form of residential development that would be out of keeping with the loose, spacious and semi-rural character that presently defines this part of [site address] .

Given this, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policies CSTP22, CSTP23, PMD2, and PMD6 insofar as they seek to ensure that new development is well-designed and contributes positively to local character.

The Framework highlights that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances, with substantial weight given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very Special Circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The proposal would result in the provision of four new dwellings. The Council acknowledges that it cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In this context, the delivery of additional family housing attracts weight in favour of the proposal. However, the contribution of four dwellings would be modest in scale and would make only a small contribution to addressing the identified housing shortfall. Consequently, while the provision of additional housing weighs in favour of the proposal, I afford this benefit moderate weight.

The appellant also refers to the sustainability credentials of the development, including the incorporation of energy-efficient construction and associated environmental measures including sustainable drainage systems. Whilst such features are consistent with contemporary expectations for new residential development, they are not unusual and would be expected of modern housing schemes in any event. I therefore attribute limited weight to these sustainability aspects.

The provision of electric vehicle charging points and cycle parking spaces would encourage the uptake of lower-emission vehicles and support opportunities for cycling. However, such infrastructure is increasingly standard in new residential developments and would not in itself represent an exceptional benefit. I therefore attach minimal weight to these aspects of the proposal.

It is likely that the proposal would generate some short-term employment and economic activity during construction. However, such benefits are typically temporary and are associated with most forms of residential development. Likewise, the additional spending generated by a small number of households would be limited in scale. Consequently, while these factors weigh in favour of the proposal, they attract limited weight.

The appellant also suggests that the redevelopment of the site would represent an efficient use of land. I have already found that the proposal would not fall within the relevant exception for redevelopment of previously developed land and would have a harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt. Although paragraph 125 of the Framework states that substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes, I have found the proposal would result in substantial harm. Therefore, I do not agree that the proposal would constitute an efficient use of land. As such, this argument does not weigh in favour of the scheme.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Therefore, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged. However, paragraph 11 d) i) states that there are circumstances where the application of policies in the Framework to protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing the proposal. Footnote 7 identifies the Green Belt as such an area and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case.

The proposal would cause harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness, as well as harm to openness, and substantial weight must be given cumulatively to this harm. I have also found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. The other considerations advanced in this case do not clearly outweigh the substantial harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

The appeal site is located within the recognised ‘Zone of Influence’ for one or more of the European designated sites scoped into the [name] and [name] (RAMS). I have a duty under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to assess any impact the proposed development would have upon the RAMS. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for the reasons given above, I do not need to conduct any further assessment in relation to the RAMS.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.