# Old Bean Cottage, Shellbank Lane, Bean

- **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
- **Tags:** householder, disproportionate-extension, grey-belt-householder-route, unmet-need-evidence-fail, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, neutral-no-harm, no-consultation-new-framework, appeal-planning-officer

## 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
- **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 weight).** 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008745
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6aa37b57-4b01-440b-8356-c880a5d1cd9a

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008745.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.