# 118A Hempstead Road, Kings Langley

- **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
- **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, retrospective, psed-disability

## 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
- **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 weight).** inappropriate plus moderate openness harm; visible from open land east and south (DL 10-12, 21)
- **DP3: harm (significant weight).** 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010273
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bd1b2b74-6f09-43a1-aa33-f9e70f4f4e70

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010273.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.