Epping Forest District Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in Epping Forest?
The selected examples show what inspectors accepted or criticised in local Green Belt appeals.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 62 of 239
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 17
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 44
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 58
- of 62 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Epping Forest LPA (51.70889, 0.148762). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Epping Forest District Council appeal findings
Epping Forest Green Belt additions and openness
One of the selected examples, appeal 3852, gives streetscene reasoning, so it sits at the edge of this Green Belt evidence.
Counted against appeals
Epping Forest Green Belt bulk and fallback proof
Bulk reduced Green Belt openness
The enlarged building was visible from public places and countryside, and its added bulk reduced visual openness of the Green Belt.
Unproven fallback scheme carried little weight
A suggested permitted-development alternative carried limited weight because no specific proposal or compelling evidence showed it would be built.
Helped or needed
Epping Forest Green Belt extension and outbuilding tests
Extension fitted a Green Belt exception
For the rear extension, the Inspector found it met an extension-or-alteration exception and was not inappropriate development.
Outbuilding was not disproportionate
After reviewing evidence and the site, the Inspector found the outbuilding was not disproportionate to the original dwelling.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say your addition is disproportionate to the original dwelling?
- Which public, private-street or countryside views does the refusal identify?
- Does the refusal say a fallback scheme lacks specific evidence?
These Epping Forest extracts do not show every fact or reasoning step from the decisions. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
6 April 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension and associated site works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
As such, the main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of development plan policy and the Framework.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposal would meet the exception in the Framework for an extension or alteration to a building and would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. For these reasons, the proposal would satisfy Paragraph 149 of the Framework, and Policies GB2A and GB14 of the Local Plan.
Paragraph 9 · Source pages 2, 3
30 October 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
rear outbuilding to create home office and gym space.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is: • whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, the proposed outbuilding would not be a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original dwelling and would, therefore, not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Thus, it would accord with Policy DM4 of the Local Plan 2023 and the associated provisions of the Framework, which seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
22 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a 3-bay car port to front left hand side of property and extension to existing front porch.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and relevant development plan policies; • The effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and • Would the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The possibility of a similar or larger sized car port being constructed under permitted development rights has been brought to my attention. No specific proposals have been provided by the appellants and no compelling evidence has been provided to indicate the likelihood of the appellants carrying out such works should the appeal not be successful. However, they have indicated that this car port would be located to the rear of the main dwelling with additional hardstanding required and would therefore have a greater impact upon openness of the Green Belt. Although some long-range views across open farmland may be possible, due to its location to the rear of the dwelling short range views from the public realm would be less likely. Therefore, such a proposal would have less impact on the visual openness of the Green Belt when compared to the proposal before me. Furthermore, additional hardstanding on the site would have a minimal impact on the visual and spatial openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, these permitted development rights would only attract limited weight in support of the proposal.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
28 September 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a porch and entrance gates, piers and walls.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and relevant development plan policies; • The effect on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • Would the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
However, the proposed gates and wall would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would therefore conflict with Policy DBE10 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan (1998) which requires development to complement the appearance of the streetscene, the existing building and the green belt. It would also conflict with the general design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies DM3, DM9 and DM10 of the Local Plan Submission Version (2017) which seek to prevent harm to the landscape character and provide a high specification of design which respects the setting of the original building.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
25 January 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “proposed 2 storey side extension and single storey rear extension. In the width of the existing garage and a new front porch. Render all elevations, re-tile the roof with slates and a Velux window to the East elevation”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
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 -2021- (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies, including any relevant effects on the openness of the Green Belt, • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and immediately surrounding area, 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.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The openness of the Green Belt has both a visual and spatial dimension. The extended building would be visible from the public realm, the private street and the wider countryside. It would be readily apparent, and therefore obvious, to observers. In visual terms therefore, the increased bulkiness of the enlarged built form of the building would result in a reduction in the visual openness of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3