- Decision
- dismissed, 1 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: A M Nilsson (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer T Morris)
- Authority
- Gravesham (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6005603
- Application reference
- 20250952
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Partly retrospective first-floor side and ground-floor rear extensions, loft conversion, porch, parking
- Site context
- green belt
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(b), GB6(2), DP3(1)
- Development plan policies
- Gravesham Core Strategy 2014 CS02, CS19, Local Plan First Review saved C13, Householder Design Guide SPD 2021
- Main issues
- disproportionate extension; openness; character and appearance; fallback; VSC
Summary
Partly built extensions to a semi-detached cottage, 71.69% larger than the original. They were disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). An extant permission of similar size was a fallback that neutralised the Green Belt and openness harm. But the as-built design, flush with the front and without a dropped ridge, caused character harm the fallback did not cover, so VSC failed.
Issues and findings
- GB7(1)(b): FAIL. "The proposed extensions would increase the floor area of the dwelling by 71.69% … the extensions would amount to a disproportionate increase" (DL ¶8).
- Openness: moderate harm, to which substantial weight is given (DL ¶12).
- Fallback: "the fallback position provided by the existing planning permission addresses the harm of the proposal by reason of its inappropriateness, as well as the harm to the openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶23), but "the difference between the fallback scheme and the appeal scheme in terms of character and appearance is substantial" (DL ¶24).
- Design (DP3(1)): "bulky and conspicuous … would erode the symmetry of the pair" (DL ¶15).
Planning balance
GB6(2). The fallback offset the Green Belt harms, leaving design harm as "other harm" not clearly outweighed (DL ¶26). ¶26 also says the scheme "would not be inappropriate development" because of the fallback. That conflicts with DL ¶8-9 and should be read as meaning the fallback neutralises the inappropriateness harm.
What made the difference
Design. Without the SPD-compliant set-back and set-down of the approved scheme, the fallback could not justify the as-built extension.
Transferable points
- A similar-sized extant permission can neutralise definitional and openness harm in a VSC balance (DL ¶23).
- The fallback does not cover harms the approved scheme avoided, here design (DL ¶24).
- Design harm counts as "any other harm" in GB6(2) (DL ¶26).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(b) | fail | 71.69% floor area increase vs one-third LP C13 guide; disproportionate (DL 7-9) | |
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | moderate openness harm; fallback (earlier permission of similar size) addresses inappropriateness and openness harm, but not design harm (DL 11-12, 21-26) |
| DP3(1) | conflict | no set-back or set-down; unbalances the semi-detached pair (DL 13-20) |
Key facts
- 71.69% increase over the original dwelling
- Earlier permission (20240708) of similar scale but with a set-back and dropped ridge - fallback neutralises Green Belt harm but not design harm
- Letter concludes "Due to the fallback the appeal scheme would not be inappropriate development" (DL 26), inconsistent with DL 8-9
- Decided without re-consultation on the 2026 Framework
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.