- Decision
- dismissed, 26 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: J D Clark
- Authority
- Cheshire East (North West)
- Appeal reference
- 6008087
- Application reference
- 25/2665/HOUS
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Demolition of existing (partly unlawful) extensions and construction of new extensions
- Site context
- green belt, washed over village
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(b), GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 PG3, SE3, SADPD 2022 RUR11, ENV2
- Main issues
- disproportionate extension; openness; bats; VSC
Summary
Proposal to regularise and reconfigure a heavily extended former dormer bungalow (subject to an enforcement notice) in a Green Belt infill village. It was dismissed. The result would be 71-100% larger than the original and "bear little resemblance" to it. That was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), and the comparison with the enforcement-notice baseline was neutral, not VSC.
Issues and findings
- Transition: the relevant policies "remain similar"; no consultation (DL ¶3).
- GB7(1)(b): FAIL. "Whichever calculations are taken into account, the 30% threshold is substantially exceeded … the proposed dwelling bears little resemblance to the original dormer bungalow … Green Belt assessment is based on the original dwelling" (DL ¶10).
- Openness: "It cannot therefore have anything other than a greater impact on openness" (DL ¶11).
- VSC: the differences from the enforcement-compliant house "would have a neutral effect which does not go far enough to amount to the very special circumstances" (DL ¶25). Council approvals elsewhere of 62-85% increases got limited weight (DL ¶24).
Planning balance
GB6(2). Substantial harm from inappropriateness and openness, with no weighty considerations (DL ¶25).
What made the difference
Proportionality is measured against the original building, not the extended or enforcement-baseline house.
Transferable points
- Proportionality under GB7(1)(b) is judged against the original building, however long ago it was subsumed (DL ¶10).
- Infill-village latitude on local percentage thresholds does not stretch to near-doubling (DL ¶9-10).
- An improvement over an enforcement-notice baseline is neutral, not VSC (DL ¶23-25).
- Council approvals of large percentage increases elsewhere carry limited weight without details (DL ¶24).
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 | 71-100% over original dormer bungalow depending on method; well above 30% RUR11 guide even allowing infill-village latitude; bears little resemblance to original (DL 6-12) | |
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | inappropriate plus greater openness impact; enforcement-notice baseline comparison neutral, not VSC (DL 12, 20-25) |
| N6 | neutral | bat roost mitigation by condition; Morge; licence likely (DL 13-19) |
Key facts
- Outstanding enforcement notice (APP/R0660/C/24/3346262) requires removal of unlawful extensions; previous inspector found 142% increase
- Proposal 71-100% larger than the original dormer bungalow depending on method
- Site in an infill village in the Green Belt - local policy allows latitude above 30%, but not this much
- New Framework applied without consultation (relevant policies "remain similar")
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.