# Rykneld, Main Road, Old Brampton

- **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
- **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, solar-benefit-substantial, cumulative-extensions

## 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
- **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 weight).** 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 weight).** 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011065
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a445c319-00c8-4044-889b-0cdef1fabed8

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011065.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.