- Decision
- dismissed, 24 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: D R Kay
- Authority
- Dorset (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6007369
- Application reference
- P/HOU/2025/06963
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Extension to existing annexe (living room) and flue
- Site context
- green belt
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(b), GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- East Dorset Local Plan 2002 saved GB3, Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy 2014 KS3, HE2
- Main issues
- inappropriate development; openness; VSC
Summary
Small, screened extension to an annexe at a much-extended dwelling. Dismissed. Cumulative additions already exceeded 100% of the original building, so the extension was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). Garden land is not PDL, so (e) did not apply. There was moderate openness harm. Multi-generational and PSED considerations did not amount to VSC.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The relevant matters were "substantially unchanged", so the appeal was decided under the 2026 Framework without consultation (DL ¶3). One of the earliest 2026 GB decisions (24 Aug 2026).
- GB7(1)(e): FAIL. "the site is within the garden curtilage of a residential dwelling. As such, it would not meet the definition of PDL in Annex B" (DL ¶9). The letter then refers to "the GB7(1)(g) exception", which appears to be a slip for (e).
- GB7(1)(b): FAIL. "Cumulatively, the floor area of the original building has therefore already been enlarged by significantly more than 100% … would represent disproportionate additions" (DL ¶13). The saved local policy likewise bars "a succession of 'limited' extensions which cumulatively form a substantial extension" (DL ¶14).
- Openness: moderate harm in both visual and spatial terms, despite screening (DL ¶16).
- PSED. The existing annexe already provides independent living, so the benefit is outweighed (DL ¶19-21).
Planning balance
GB6(2): the other considerations were "not sufficient to comprise the very special circumstances" (DL ¶23).
What made the difference
Planning history. The original bungalow had been doubled and the garage more than doubled, so even a small infill addition was disproportionate.
Transferable points
- Residential garden curtilage is not PDL for GB7(1)(e) (DL ¶9).
- Screening from public views does not remove openness harm (DL ¶15-16).
- An unevidenced permitted development fallback carries little weight (DL ¶22).
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 | original bungalow doubled by a 1987 upward extension; garage enlarged ~110% in 1993 then converted to an annexe; cumulative increase well over 100%, so any further addition is disproportionate (DL 10-13) | |
| GB7(1)(e) | fail | residential garden curtilage is not PDL under Annex B (DL 9) | |
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | moderate visual and spatial openness harm even though screened from public views (DL 16) |
| Equality Act s149 | neutral | multi-generational and protected-characteristic need considered; existing annexe already meets needs; outweighed (DL 19-21) |
Key facts
- Original bungalow and detached double garage; 1987 second storey; 1993 garage to four-car; 2021 conversion to a two-bed annexe
- Small extension in the internal corner, substantially screened from the public realm
- Permitted development fallback unevidenced, so little weight
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.