A Green Belt cottage that a Staffordshire council ordered demolished can remain after an Inspector allowed an enforcement appeal and discharged the demolition condition on the original planning permission.
The decision, issued on 27th October 2026, concerns Broomhall Cottages at Brewood in South Staffordshire. A replacement detached house had already been built, but one of the original semi-detached cottages was still standing despite a 2018 permission requiring it to be removed.
I would not treat this as permission for a second independent home. The Green Belt cottage was retained only as an extension to the adjoining cottage, secured by a section 106 undertaking that also restricts future extensions and requires other works.
Why the Green Belt cottage faced demolition
South Staffordshire District Council granted permission in July 2018 for a detached dwelling to replace part of an existing pair of cottages. Condition 5 required demolition of the original dwelling concurrently with construction and lawful disposal or reuse of the resulting materials.
The replacement house was subsequently completed and occupied. However, the older cottage remained. The council issued an enforcement notice in December 2023 alleging failure to comply with condition 5 and requiring demolition within four months.
The appellant challenged the notice on ground (a), which asks the Inspector to grant the planning permission needed for the development, and ground (f), which concerns excessive enforcement requirements. Because the ground (a) challenge succeeded, the Inspector did not need to determine ground (f).
The Green Belt cottage decision was therefore not an ordinary appeal against a refusal of a new dwelling. It was an enforcement appeal with a deemed planning application under section 177(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Planning Geek’s guide to enforcement appeal grounds explains why the statutory ground matters.
How one cottage became an extension to the other
The appellant’s solution was to retain the old No 1 as accommodation linked to adjoining No 2. This changed the question: rather than treating the surviving building as a separate replacement dwelling, the Inspector considered whether it could be acceptable as an extension to an existing building.
The applicable August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework places relevant Green Belt exceptions within policies GB6 and GB7. Extensions can qualify where they do not cause a disproportionate increase in size compared with the original building. South Staffordshire’s supplementary guidance refers to a flexible 20% to 40% range for residential extensions.
That was not a straightforward calculation. Without any future extension to No 2, the surviving Green Belt cottage would represent roughly a 50% increase in floorspace. The Inspector found the council had earlier accepted that a substantial single-storey rear extension to No 2 could be constructed under permitted development rights.
Using that lawful fallback in the comparison, and allowing for removal of a small existing rear extension, the Inspector assessed the retained cottage as an addition of slightly less than 40%. That brought the combined building within the adopted guidance, provided safeguards were secured.
It is important not to turn this into a universal 40% rule for the Green Belt. The comparison depended on the facts, the local guidance, the specific permitted development fallback and the limitations accepted by the appellant.
Section 106 undertaking prevents a second independent dwelling
The Inspector had received a signed unilateral undertaking dated 23 September 2026. It was central to the result because it addressed the implications of keeping a building which the original planning permission expected to disappear.
The undertaking removes permitted development rights for extensions and roof additions under Classes A and B of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order. It also requires No 1 to remain an extension to No 2, never subdivided or occupied independently.
Finally, it requires demolition of the small existing rear extension to No 2 within six months of the appeal decision. The resulting restrictions made the Inspector’s floorspace comparison and the proposed single dwelling arrangement enforceable.
The Green Belt cottage was not granted permission to remain as a stand-alone house. Any report suggesting that this appeal authorised an additional independent dwelling would misstate the decision. The relevant distinction is between retaining a building physically and creating a separate planning unit.
Planning Geek explains the mechanics of such controls in its section 106 agreement guide, while its guidance on removing permitted development rights by condition provides related background. Here, however, the restrictions were contained in the executed undertaking rather than a new stand-alone planning condition.
Inspector found no material harm to Green Belt openness
The two cottages were built before 1882 and have matching forms, materials and architectural details. The Inspector considered views from Horsebrook Farm Lane and a public right of way running past the site.
Removing one half of the original pair would change the built form, but its retention did not necessarily create a greater impact than the development that could otherwise lawfully occur. A possible rear extension to No 2 would occupy a similar footprint, albeit with less volume and in a different position.
Viewed from the lane, the Inspector found no material change to visual openness. From the footpath, any change was also unlikely to be appreciable to a passing walker. The complementary appearance of the old cottages was relevant to the assessment of visual amenity.
This Green Belt cottage appeal illustrates why an openness assessment needs more than a simple comparison of existing and proposed cubic metres. Location, visibility, footprint, lawful alternatives and the precise planning controls can all matter, although the result is not a licence to disregard the additional volume of development.
Enforcement notice quashed and demolition condition discharged
Inspector John Braithwaite concluded that the undertaking allowed the cottage to be retained without inappropriate Green Belt development. In the decision’s words, the arrangement would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt
.
The ground (a) appeal was allowed, the enforcement notice was quashed and condition 5 of the 2018 permission was discharged. Planning permission was granted on the deemed application without that condition, subject to the original permission’s other conditions.
The Green Belt cottage outcome is narrower than a general power to ignore demolition conditions. It depended on a fresh assessment under the current Framework, a particular permitted development fallback, preservation of openness and binding restrictions preventing a second independent dwelling.
For developers and planning consultants, the useful question is whether the planning harm a condition was designed to prevent can be addressed by a different enforceable arrangement. This case shows that it sometimes can, but only where the evidence and legal mechanism are sufficient.
Official appeal decision
The Planning Inspectorate case record for appeal 3336376 concerns Broomhall Cottages, Brewood, and a South Staffordshire enforcement notice relating to planning permission 18/00338/FUL. Inspector John Braithwaite issued the decision on 27th October 2026. The short Inspector quotation above is reproduced from the decision under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments