# 66 Belbroughton Road, Blakedown

- **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C McDonagh
- **Authority:** Wyre Forest (West Midlands)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010714
- **Application reference:** 26/0005/HOU
- **Procedure:** householder
- **Development:** Two-storey side extension, replacement single-storey rear extensions, front garage and entrance canopy
- **Site context:** green-belt
- **Green Belt:** yes
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2)
- **Development plan policies:** Wyre Forest Local Plan 2016-2036 DM.22, DM.25, Design Amenity and Shopfronts SPD 2024
- **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, living conditions, VSC
- **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, householder-gb, fallback, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, transitional-no-consultation

## Summary
Householder extensions to a semi-detached house in the Worcestershire Green Belt. The appeal was dismissed. The extensions were well beyond the SPD's 75% allowance and therefore disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). Permitted development and CLOPUD fallbacks got limited weight because they would be smaller and have no first floor at the side.

## Issues and findings
- **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "Guidance it may be, but the SPD is relatively recent, and I see no reason not to give it significant weight … the parties agree that with a total volume of 661m³ the proposals would exceed both figures by some way" (DL ¶7). The proposal "would significantly exceed the recommended 75% increase over the original dwelling and constitute inappropriate development" (DL ¶8).
- **Openness.** Rear elements were neutral, but the forward two-storey side extension "would add significant bulk and mass … Spatially and visually, this would reduce openness" (DL ¶11). The overall loss was limited (DL ¶12).
- **Fallback.** Schneck [2022] EWHC 3335 (Admin) sets a low threshold for a real prospect. But the fallback "would still be less than the proposal by a significant margin … there would seemingly be no first floor" (DL ¶19-22).

## Planning balance
GB6(2). The benefits did not clearly outweigh substantial-weight Green Belt harm (DL ¶25).

## What made the difference
The numbers. Both parties' calculations put the scheme well over 75%. A design within the allowance, for example a two-storey side element with a smaller rear extension, was flagged as a possible alternative (DL ¶20).

## Transferable points
- A recent local SPD percentage allowance for Green Belt extensions gets significant weight in applying GB7(1)(b) (DL ¶7).
- PD and CLOPUD fallbacks carry limited weight where they are materially smaller or avoid the harmful element, here the first floor at the side (DL ¶20-22).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(b): fail.** total 661 m³ significantly exceeds SPD 75% floor-area/volume allowance on either party's figure → disproportionate (DL 5-8)
- **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** limited overall loss of openness — side extension forward and two-storey visible from road (DL 9-12, 25)
- **L2: pass.** rear extension breaches 45-degree code but no serious adverse effect on No.64 (DL 13-16)

## Key facts
- The SPD allows extensions up to 75% of the original (1948) floor area and volume, counting outbuildings within 5 m. It was given significant weight as recent guidance aligned with the Framework
- Fallbacks were a prior approval larger home extension (26/0266PNH) and a CLOPUD for porch, side extension and hip-to-gable (26/0265/CLP). Limited weight, because they would be smaller and single-storey at the side
- No consultation on the 2026 Framework — changes held "not material" (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010714
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/dfb6c34e-e9f9-47d2-8fdb-75b221ec2127

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010714.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.