Green Belt enforcement has prevailed at Little Burstead in Essex after an inspector dismissed linked appeals over a building, hardstanding and other developments at land known as Mae-Val. The decision, dated 15 October 2026, leaves Basildon Borough Council’s enforcement requirements in place.
The Green Belt enforcement case involved four linked appeals against two notices issued on 8 March 2024. They concerned a building, its concrete base, and other development and uses on land at Green Lane near Billericay. The decision treats the notices and appeal grounds separately, so the outcome should not be mistaken for a single planning application. I would keep that distinction in mind before drawing conclusions from the result.
The first notice required demolition of the building, removal of its concrete base and restoration of the land. The second concerned additional development and uses, including hardstanding and items associated with the rural site. The appellants challenged aspects of what the council required and sought planning permission for matters addressed by the second notice.
Why the Green Belt enforcement appeals failed
Inspector Andrew Walker considered whether the development amounted to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, its effect on openness and local character, and whether other considerations could establish the very special circumstances needed to overcome the identified harm.
The inspector found harm to the Green Belt and significant harm to the character of the locality. He gave substantial weight to the Green Belt harm in the planning balance. Benefits put forward, including keeping animals and making recreational use of land, were acknowledged but did not clearly outweigh that harm. Walker concluded that “very special circumstances do not exist”, illustrating why Green Belt enforcement can succeed even where recreational benefits are claimed.
What the inspector said about lesser steps
That conclusion defeated the attempt to secure permission. The inspector also rejected the argument that the requirements of the second notice went further than necessary. The council’s stated purpose was to return the land to its previous grassed-field condition, and the inspector considered the specified steps proportionate to that objective.
For anyone facing Green Belt enforcement, the distinction matters. A successful argument that a notice’s steps are excessive needs to identify a genuinely lesser remedy consistent with what the notice is lawfully trying to achieve. It is not enough simply to prefer retaining useful structures when those structures are part of the planning harm.
Why the decision matters
The Green Belt enforcement decision therefore illustrates two separate hurdles: showing that planning permission should be granted despite policy harm, and showing that a council has demanded more remedial work than is necessary. Neither argument succeeded here. The decision is site-specific and should not be treated as a general ban on rural structures. I would read the formal reasons alongside the particular notice before applying it to another site.
Anyone comparing their own case should distinguish the planning merits from the precise requirements of an enforcement notice. Our planning enforcement guide explains the wider process. The inspector’s decision on this Green Belt enforcement dispute is also available via Appealbase, under the linked appeal references.
0 Comments