- Decision
- dismissed, 17 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer F Bradford)
- Authority
- Runnymede (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6008286
- Application reference
- RU.25/1830
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Two-storey side extension, single-storey rear extension incorporating garage, front porch
- Site context
- green belt
- Green Belt
- Yes
- Framework applied
- December 2024 NPPF (transitional)
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(b), GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- Runnymede 2030 Local Plan 2020 EE14
- Main issues
- inappropriate development; openness; VSC
Summary
Householder extensions to a 1960s semi in the Runnymede Green Belt, amounting to about a 70% floor-area increase. Dismissed as disproportionate, with harm to openness. The decision is dated 17 August 2026, the day the 2026 Framework took effect, but it applies the December 2024 Framework (para 154(c)) without mentioning the new one. Recorded as transitional.
Issues and findings
- Framework applied. The letter cites "Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework" (DL ¶3), i.e. the 2024 version. There is no reference to the 17 Aug 2026 Framework.
- Disproportionate: YES. "close to three quarters of the original building again. This would not be limited or marginal. It would in actual fact be quite substantial" (DL ¶7). Proportionality is "as much a matter of planning judgement in the qualitative sense as it is a mathematical calculation" (DL ¶4).
- Openness: harm from the visible two-storey side element and porch (DL ¶¶11–12).
- Fallback: very limited weight. The prior approval is "considerably smaller in land take and volume … approved under secondary legislation that is not subject to the same Green Belt assessments" (DL ¶13).
Planning balance
Substantial weight to GB harm and limited weight to other considerations. VSC not shown (DL ¶15).
What made the difference
A roughly 70% uplift on a modest dwelling. The 2026 GB7(1)(b) wording ("disproportionate increase in size compared to the original building") would give the same result.
Transferable points
- A cumulative increase of about 70% on a modest semi is "quite substantial" and disproportionate (DL ¶7).
- A smaller prior-approval rear extension is a weak fallback against a larger scheme (DL ¶13).
- Transition: at least one decision issued on 17 Aug 2026 still applied the 2024 Framework.
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 | decided under 2024 NPPF para 154(c) (= GB7(1)(b)); c.70% floor-area increase on modest 1960s semi → disproportionate (DL 3-9) | |
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | 2024 paras 152-153; visible two-storey side bulk and porch reduce spatial and visual openness (DL 10-12, 15) |
| fallback | benefit | very-limited | extant prior approval for 6 m single-storey rear extension; much smaller, so very limited weight (DL 13) |
Key facts
- Late-1960s two-storey semi; early-1970s rear extension added c.17 sqm (13%)
- Appellant's own figures show just over 70% cumulative floor-area increase
- Decision issued on 17 Aug 2026, the day the new Framework was published, but it cites 2024 para 154(c)
- Site visit by an Appeal Planning Officer; decision by the Inspector on the recommendation
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.