- Decision
- dismissed, 4 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: L McKay (on recommendation of J Kirkaldy, appeal planning officer)
- Authority
- Dartford (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6008745
- Application reference
- DA/26/00160/FUL
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Part single / part two-storey side extensions to a dwelling
- Site context
- green belt, settlement edge
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt accepted)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(b), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- Dartford Local Plan 2024 M12
- Main issues
- inappropriate development; openness; VSC balance
Summary
Side extensions to an already much-extended cottage in the Dartford Green Belt. They failed GB7(1)(b), taking the cumulative increase to over double the original volume. The attempted GB7(1)(g) grey belt route for a householder extension also failed: wanting a bigger house is not an "evidenced unmet need". Limited openness harm, no VSC. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- GB7(1)(b): FAIL. "the comparison required by policy is with the original building, not the existing" (DL ¶10). Cumulative +93.5% plus +13% gives "more than double the volume of the original dwelling" (DL ¶9).
- GB7(1)(g) grey belt route for a householder extension: FAIL at (ii). "Whilst I recognise that a larger dwelling may be desirable to the appellant, this does not, in itself, amount to evidence of a demonstrable unmet need. Therefore, criterion ii. of Policy GB7 g is not met" (DL ¶14). (iii) was met (DL ¶15).
- Grey belt status alone gives no weight. It "does not weigh in favour of the proposal given that the other criteria required for grey belt are not met" (DL ¶18).
- L2 not engaged (DL ¶21). Absence of other harm is neutral (DL ¶22).
Planning balance
GB6(2). Substantial weight to inappropriateness plus limited openness harm; "no other considerations to clearly outweigh" (DL ¶23).
What made the difference
The cumulative volume. The (g) fallback could not work because footnote 41 unmet need is about housing supply, not a household's private wish for more space.
Transferable points
- Householder extensions can in principle be run through GB7(1)(g), but limb (ii) requires evidence of unmet need for the type of development. Private preference is not enough (DL ¶14).
- GB7(1)(b) compares the proposal with the original building and cumulative additions, not the existing house (DL ¶8–10).
- Screening by vegetation cannot be relied on to reduce openness harm (DL ¶19).
- L2's substantial weight does not attach to a householder extension that falls in none of its categories (DL ¶21).
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 | existing extensions +93.5% over the original volume, proposal +13% more, so more than double; comparison is with the original building, not the existing one (DL 9-11) | |
| AnnexB:grey-belt | pass | single dwelling on village edge "may meet" grey belt, treated as satisfying (i) arguendo (DL 14, 18) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | fail | a desire for a larger house is not evidence of "demonstrable unmet need" (DL 14) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | pass | extension "sustainably located in relation to the existing dwelling" (DL 15) | |
| GB6(2) | fail | substantial | limited openness harm; no VSC (DL 19-23) |
| L2 | not-engaged | no evidence that the extension falls within any L2 category, so no substantial weight (DL 21) |
Key facts
- Council calculated existing extensions at c. 93.5% volume over the original; proposal adds c. 13%; figures unchallenged
- 2026 Framework applied without consultation, as not materially different on the main issues (DL 3)
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.