A Roydon homes appeal for three or four dwellings at Barn Hill in Roydon Hamlet, Essex, has been dismissed. Inspector John Felgate issued the decision on 14th October 2026, finding that the proposal would extend into open countryside and harm the Green Belt rather than fill a gap within the village.
The Roydon homes application sought permission in principle, a route that considers whether housing is acceptable before detailed proposals are assessed. The appeal therefore concerned the suitability of the development in principle. It did not seek approval of a finished house design, and no permission was granted.
I would separate the two main findings here. The Green Belt objection defeated the scheme, but the council did not substantiate its separate argument that effects on Epping Forest’s protected habitats ruled out this application route. For local landowners, that means the decision contains a useful procedural point without making this site acceptable for housing.
Why the Roydon homes were not village infilling
The appeal land forms part of the extensive landscaped grounds of The Rise. It was said to have once been a commercial nursery. Barn Hill is a private road serving around a dozen detached houses at the edge of Roydon Hamlet.
The applicant argued that the proposal would be infilling, one of the exceptions to the normal restrictions on new buildings in the Green Belt. Physically, new houses would have linked the existing housing along Barn Hill with buildings at Crest Farm.
However, the Inspector found that the character changed significantly after the first 150 metres or so of built-up road. Beyond that point, the surroundings were mainly open land, tree belts, hedges, tracks and distant woodland. Crest Farm appeared as a separate outlying group, rather than part of the village.
In the full official decision, he described the proposal as an “incursion outside of the existing settlement”. The site was neither contained within the settlement nor enclosed by existing development.
That was the central difficulty for the Roydon homes. Drawing a line between two groups of buildings did not establish that the intervening countryside was an infill gap. The Inspector also found that substantial new built form would sever the broad stretch of open land between Barn Hill and Crest Farm, reducing Green Belt openness.
Grey belt was not determined
The council appeared to accept that the land was within the lawful residential curtilage of The Rise, but maintained that it was not previously developed land. The appellant did not dispute that point. Nor was an argument advanced that the national grey belt policy applied.
The Inspector expressly based his decision on the submissions before him and did not consider those alternatives further. It would therefore be wrong to describe this as a decision that the land cannot be grey belt. That question was not decided.
For anyone comparing the Roydon homes with another site, this distinction matters. An appeal answers the case put forward on the evidence available. It does not automatically settle every alternative planning argument that might have been explored.
The habitats objection did not stand up
Epping Forest District Council’s second refusal reason argued that, without a legal obligation, the proposal would harm the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation. It said this made the proposal habitats development, excluding it from permission in principle under Article 5B of the relevant order.
The Inspector found no further explanation in the council’s officer report or appeal statement. He recognised that vehicle emissions and recreational pressure could have been in mind, but distinguished a possible effect from one that was both likely and significant.
On the evidence supplied, he saw no grounds to classify the proposal as habitats development for that purpose. He also noted that an appropriate assessment, if necessary, and any necessary obligation could be addressed at the technical details stage. He placed no weight on the appellant’s submitted assessment document in reaching this conclusion.
This finding in the Roydon homes appeal should be read in its specific evidential context. It is not a general exemption from habitats protection, nor a finding that small housing proposals can never affect Epping Forest. The decision repeatedly refers to the lack of supporting evidence before the Inspector.
Housing benefits did not outweigh the harm
The district’s lack of a five-year housing land supply was not disputed. Providing three or four dwellings towards that shortfall attracted moderate weight. Potential self-build or custom-build delivery, at least in the three-home option, also weighed in favour.
Those benefits were insufficient to establish the very special circumstances needed to justify the inappropriate Green Belt development identified in this case. The Inspector found that the benefits were clearly outweighed by harm, including the loss of openness and countryside encroachment.
The Roydon homes proposal consequently remains refused. My practical reading is to test the settlement boundary and the actual character of the gap before relying on an infilling argument, and to support any habitats objection or response with evidence addressing the relevant threshold. Winning one issue does not secure permission when another independently defeats the scheme.
The official appeal record identifies reference 6009066 and application EPF/0111/26. For another recent decision involving a different Green Belt route, see the West Horsley four-home appeal; its outcome should not be treated as interchangeable with this site-specific assessment.
0 Comments