Appeal 6003100

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council have, within their reasons for refusal as set out in their Decision Notice dated 3 October 2025, refused the proposal as it considers that it is capable of use as a separate unit of accommodation. However, the description of the development proposed is for an annex and store and I have considered the proposal solely on that basis.

Given the above, the main issues in this appeal are: - • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies, including any relevant effects on the openness of the Green Belt, and: - • Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

There is no dispute between the parties that the appeal site (the site) lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt as defined within the [name] of the Brentwood Local Plan 2016-2033 (2022) (the Local Plan). The appeal site is associated with [site address] (No 3), a modest two storey end of terrace dwelling and contains a single storey outbuilding, currently used as a garage, with vehicular access from [address].

Policy MG02 of the Local Plan sets out that the Metropolitan Green Belt will be preserved from inappropriate development so that it continues to maintain its openness and serve its key functions and that planning permission will not be granted for inappropriate development in the Green Belt other than in very special circumstances. It further states that all development proposals within the Green Belt will be considered and assessed in accordance with the provisions of national

Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of certain exceptions apply, whilst Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Thus, Policy MG02 accords closely with the aims set out within Part 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework, which seeks to protect Green Belt.

One of the exceptions, set out within Paragraph 154 allows for the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. It is proposed to demolish the existing garage and construct a replacement outbuilding to create an annexe and storeroom.

The proposed use of the building is similar to that of the building that it would replace. However, it would be significantly higher, with a considerably larger footprint and, therefore, volume. It is thus materially larger than the building it would replace and would not satisfy the exception as set out in the Framework.

The Framework identifies the fundamental aim of the Green Belt as “to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence”. The openness of the Green Belt has both a visual and spatial dimension. Whilst there is no dispute that the plot could accommodate a building of the scale proposed, and the design of the building is not out of keeping with nearby development, the proposed building would nonetheless be considerably bulkier than the building that it would replace. Thus, the development would lead to a loss of openness in spatial terms.

The proposal would be well screened from wider views from [address] and dwellings to the north. Nonetheless, it would be plainly visible from nearby residential properties, from [address] in closer proximity, from [address] and from nearby open land. It would thus be readily apparent, and therefore obvious, to observers. The increase in built form within the site would, thus, result in a reduction in the visual openness of the Green Belt as well as spatial openness and, given the scale of the impact this would constitute significant harm.

The Green Belt serves five purposes: a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Given that the development would not extend built form farther out into the open land but would lie within the existing envelope of built form of the settlement I find that it would not encroach further into the countryside and so would not be contrary to the purposes of the Green Belt.

Thus, whilst I find that the proposal would not be contrary to the purposes of the Green Belt, I conclude that the proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and the Local Plan, and the effects on the openness of the Green Belt.

The appellant argues that the annexe accommodation is necessary to enable a family member to remain living at [address]. Together with other family members they provide support for the appellant's elderly mother who lives nearby. However, it has not been demonstrated that the annexe as proposed is the only option available to provide an additional bedroom and to fulfil the associated caring responsibilities for a person with protected characteristics.

Whilst the appellant identifies that an alternative, suggested by the Council, would be likely to raise issues associated with neighbour’s amenity, there is little evidence to demonstrate that other alternatives are not feasible that would be less harmful. In the absence of such evidence, I give this matter moderate weight in favour of allowing the appeal.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a nearby development1 at “Millers”, a neighbouring dwelling on [address], where planning permission has previously been granted. [name] do not have full details of the planning history of this development, it is for an extension on an existing dwelling, rather than a replacement building and so I do not consider that it presents a similar contextual comparison to the case before me. I therefore allocate this matter limited weight in my deliberations. I have, in any case, determined this appeal on its own merits

The appellant considers that the proposal would provide the opportunity to improve the visual amenity of the area. However, the existing building appeared to be in a good state of repair and the forecourt tidy. Further, it has not been demonstrated that the replacement of the building would be the only means of improving the visual amenity of the appeal site and so I give this matter very limited weight in my considerations.

The appellant identifies that neither her neighbours nor the local Parish Council have objected to the proposal. However, I have determined this appeal having regard to current planning policy and practice and the lack of objections is a neutral factor in my considerations.

The proposal would provide limited benefits to the local economy in terms of short-term employment in the construction industry. Taken together, and given the limited scale of the development, these benefits carry limited weight.

Policy MG02 of the Local Plan and Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that inappropriate development should not be permitted unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The appeal scheme would be inappropriate development that would, by definition, harm the Green Belt. There would also be significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the Framework requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt, whilst the other considerations identified are collectively of only limited weight in favour of the proposal. 1 Council Ref: 24/00978/HHA

Accordingly, the harm to the Green Belt is not clearly outweighed by other considerations and therefore the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies MG02 of the Local Plan and Section 13 of the Framework.

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. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal fails.