# Nine Oaks, Stocks Lane, Over Peover

- **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
- **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, vsc-not-shown, householder, washed-over-village, enforcement-baseline, transitional-no-consultation

## 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
- **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 weight).** 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008087
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/11ffb9fd-4e9a-4daf-8248-e89ea0fcef48

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008087.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.