Beech Dene, Kelsick, Abbeytown

Decision

dismissed, 1 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: R Gravett

Authority

Cumberland (North West)

Appeal reference

6011045

Application reference

FUL/2025/0152

Procedure

written representations

Development

Two-storey replacement dwelling sited in adjoining paddock, new access, garden extension, solar panels on storage barn

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(c), S5(4)

Development plan policies

Allerdale Local Plan Part 1 2014 S3, S4, S5, S31 (Policy 31), S35, DM14

Main issues

character and appearance; protected species; suitable location in countryside

Summary

The proposal replaced a modest countryside bungalow near Kelsick with a two-storey house of about 572 sqm, moved about 40 m into an adjoining paddock. The appeal was dismissed. The replacement was disproportionately larger than the building it replaced, so it fell outside S5(1)(c). The S5(4) exceptional-circumstances test was then applied and failed: moderate-weight lifestyle benefits could not substantially outweigh the character harm and the unresolved bat-roost issue.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The parties had the opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2).
• Not isolated. "there is no dispute between the parties that the appeal site is not isolated, despite being outside of any defined settlement and in open countryside" (DL ¶20). So S5 applied, not S5(3)/HO11.
• S5(1)(c) replacement: FAIL. "the footprint of the proposed dwelling would be over twice the size of the footprint of the bungalow, which is only around 150sqm ... Accordingly, I find that in addition to a substantial alteration to the existing footprint, the proposed dwelling would be disproportionally larger than the one it replaces; this is irrespective of the size of the host plot" (DL ¶25).
• S5(4): FAIL. "I have very little persuasive evidence before me that the size and scale of the proposed dwelling is necessary, or that comfortable and flexible modern living could not be met in an alternative way ... I afford these benefits only moderate weight" (DL ¶27). "the benefits of the proposal would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects to protected species and to the character and appearance of the area, including the character of the countryside" (DL ¶28).
• Character. The paddock was not PDL, with "no compelling evidence of the residential use of the paddock" (DL ¶6). The design's "unduly strong vertical emphasis" meant it would be prominent despite screening (DL ¶8-10).
• Bats. With moderate roost suitability, surveys could not be left to condition (DL ¶16-17).
• Fallback. The Class A PD rear extension was not a realistic prospect and was in any case less harmful (DL ¶30-31).

Planning balance

The inspector went straight to S5(4) once S5(1)(c) failed. The benefits (modern standards, homeworking, moving away from road noise) got moderate weight. They did not "substantially outweigh" the character and protected-species harm (DL ¶27-28). Conflict with the development plan followed (DL ¶35).

What made the difference

Size. S5(1)(c) compares the replacement with the existing building, not with the plot. More than doubling the footprint and moving into an undeveloped paddock put the scheme outside every S5(1) category. That triggered the reversed S5(4) test, which lifestyle benefits cannot meet. A replacement of similar footprint on the bungalow's position would have fallen within S5(1)(c) and the ordinary "substantially outweighed" test.

Transferable points

• S5(1)(c) proportionality is judged against the existing building, "irrespective of the size of the host plot" (DL ¶25).
• Outside the S5(1) categories, S5(4) reverses the balance: benefits must substantially outweigh harm, including harm to countryside character (DL ¶26-28).
• A site outside a defined settlement but not isolated goes through S5(1), not S5(3)/HO11 (DL ¶20).
• Land used as a paddock and not proven to be curtilage is not PDL (DL ¶6).
• A PD fallback is given significant weight only if realistic and at least as harmful (DL ¶31).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Existing bungalow about 150 sqm footprint; replacement about 572 sqm floor area, sited about 40m away partly in a paddock (DL 5, 25)
• Paddock not shown to be residential curtilage, so not PDL (DL 6)
• Class A PD fallback rejected - no realistic prospect and less harmful than the scheme (DL 29-31)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.