- Decision
- dismissed, 28 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: K E Down
- Authority
- Dacorum (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6010273
- Application reference
- 26/00671/RET
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Retrospective raised rear patio with balustrade, fencing, steps and under-patio storage
- Site context
- green belt, settlement edge
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB6(2), GB7(1)(b)
- Development plan policies
- Dacorum Core Strategy 2013 CS5, CS11, CS12
- Main issues
- inappropriate development; openness; character; privacy; VSC
Summary
Retrospective raised patio behind a new bungalow on sloping land at the Green Belt edge of Kings Langley. Dismissed. Its height and width made it a disproportionate addition under GB7(1)(b), causing moderate openness harm, plus character and privacy harm. The disabled occupier's need for accessible outdoor space got moderate weight but did not clearly outweigh the harm.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "Although changes have been made to Green Belt policy, those policies that are relevant to this decision have not materially changed" (DL ¶2).
- GB7(1)(b): FAIL. "Although the depth of the patio is not disproportionate … its height and width, emphasised by the balustrade, result in it overwhelming the rear elevation of the modest host dwelling" (DL ¶7). "proportionality does not rely only on specific measurements or parameters" (DL ¶8).
- Openness: moderate harm (DL ¶12).
- VSC / PSED. "the appellant has not provided evidence to show that the patio is in the only feasible position and is no larger than necessary … I can only attach moderate weight" (DL ¶20).
Planning balance
GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to Green Belt harm and significant weight to character and privacy harm, against moderate weight to disability need. Not clearly outweighed (DL ¶21-22). The PSED was weighed (DL ¶23).
What made the difference
The steep fall of the land meant a patio became a large elevated structure. The personal need was not supported by evidence that a smaller or differently located solution would not do.
Transferable points
- Raised patios and platforms can count as disproportionate "extensions" under GB7(1)(b), judged on height, width and visual effect, not floorspace alone (DL ¶7-8).
- Personal disability need in a VSC case needs evidence that the scheme is the minimum necessary and in the only feasible location (DL ¶20).
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 | full-width raised patio on sloping land overwhelms modest bungalow; "proportionality does not rely only on specific measurements" (DL 7-9) | |
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | inappropriate plus moderate openness harm; visible from open land east and south (DL 10-12, 21) |
| DP3 | harm | significant | bulky, pale, dominant addition at rural edge; also privacy harm to No 118 (CS11, CS12) (DL 13-18, 21) |
Key facts
- Bungalow permitted 2022 as a replacement; patio built beyond a 2025 non-material amendment for steps (DL 6)
- Need for accessible outdoor space for a disabled occupier; PSED considered; moderate weight, as no evidence the position or size was the minimum necessary and need is personal/temporary (DL 19-20, 23)
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.