- Decision
- dismissed, 24 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Graham Wraight
- Authority
- North East Derbyshire (East Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6011065
- Application reference
- 25/00930/FLH
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Extension over existing garage with rear balcony
- Site context
- green belt
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB6(2), GB7(1)(b)
- Development plan policies
- North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2021 SS10
- Main issues
- inappropriate development; openness and purposes; VSC
Summary
First-floor extension over a garage at a much-extended house in the North East Derbyshire Green Belt. Dismissed. The cumulative volume increase of about 143% over the original was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). Substantial weight to enabling rooftop solar did not clearly outweigh substantial Green Belt harm.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Not referred back to the parties: "The relevant Green Belt policy test has not materially changed" (DL ¶3).
- GB7(1)(b): FAIL. "An increase in volume of approximately 143% firmly supports a conclusion that what is proposed would be a disproportionate increase … both the Framework and the LP are clear that the comparison is with the original building, not the existing one" (DL ¶6-7). The "technical conflict" framing was rejected: "This however downplays the significance of a proposed development being found to be inappropriate" (DL ¶8).
- Openness: limited visual harm; no conflict with purposes (DL ¶11-12).
- Solar: substantial weight (DL ¶13).
Planning balance
GB6(2) VSC. Substantial and limited weights in favour did not "cross the high threshold of clearly outweighing the harm to the Green Belt" (DL ¶18).
What made the difference
Previous extensions had already used up the allowance, so even a no-footprint addition was disproportionate. Notably, even a benefit given substantial weight (solar) did not produce VSC against definitional harm plus limited openness harm.
Transferable points
- Disproportionality is cumulative against the original building (DL ¶7).
- A benefit given substantial weight (renewables) does not automatically "clearly outweigh" substantial Green Belt harm (DL ¶13, ¶18).
- Inappropriateness is not a "technical" conflict (DL ¶8).
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 | undisputed cumulative volume increase about 143% over original (124% already); comparison is with original not existing building (DL 6-9) | |
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | limited visual openness harm above flat-roofed garage; no conflict with GB2 purposes; "technical conflict" framing rejected (DL 8, 11-12, 17-18) |
| CC2 | benefit | substantial | south-facing roof plane offers the only realistic solar PV opportunity (DL 13) |
Key facts
- Earlier extensions 1978 and 2017 (DL 6)
- No increase in footprint; matching style and materials (DL 6)
- Not referred back to parties because relevant GB test "not materially changed" (DL 3)
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.