# Fairhaven, Bellwether Lane, Outwood

- **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Miles
- **Authority:** Tandridge (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6011106
- **Application reference:** TA/2026/245
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Pitched roof over single-storey side addition, garage conversion to home hair salon, front porch
- **Site context:** green-belt
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued)
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2)
- **Development plan policies:** Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 2014 DP13
- **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, VSC balance
- **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, original-building-baseline, householder

## Summary
Roof alterations, a porch and a garage-to-salon conversion at a much-extended 1959 bungalow in the Tandridge Green Belt. Dismissed. Measured against the original building, the cumulative increase was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). The bulk at roof level also harmed openness, and the private benefits carried only limited weight.

## Issues and findings
- **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "Green Belt policy requires consideration of the original building, which in this case is not the same as the existing building … Together with the existing extensions, the proposed additions would result in a marked increase in bulk and massing … a disproportionate addition" (DL ¶7).
- **Openness: harm.** "the increased bulk at roof level and the proposed porch would be likely to be visible through this, moreover, it would be clearly apparent from the road" (DL ¶9).
- **Purposes: neutral.** "the lack of an effect on Green Belt purposes would be a neutral matter" (DL ¶10).

## Planning balance
GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to GB harm against limited private benefits. VSC not shown (DL ¶¶15–16).

## What made the difference
Earlier extensions had already added over 70% to the original building, so even modest roof and porch additions tipped the scheme into being disproportionate. The GB7(1)(b) baseline remains the original building (fn 40: as at 1 July 1948 or as originally built).

## Transferable points
- Under GB7(1)(b) the comparison is with the original building, so earlier extensions count cumulatively (DL ¶7).
- A lack of conflict with Green Belt purposes is neutral and does not offset harm to openness or inappropriateness (DL ¶10).
- Adding roof bulk over an existing single-storey element counts as a loss of openness above ground floor (DL ¶9).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(b): fail.** 1959 bungalow already extended by 72% volume / 77% footprint; added roof bulk across full width plus porch = disproportionate over the original building (DL 5-8)
- **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriateness plus harm to openness from roof-level bulk visible from road (DL 9, 15)
- **GB2: neutral.** no conflict with GB purposes, but this is neutral (DL 10)
- **DP3: neutral.** no design harm (DL 12)

## Key facts
- Original 1959 bungalow; 1973 and 1989 extensions already added 72% volume and 77% footprint
- New pitched roof over flat-roof side addition across full width, plus front porch
- Benefits (home salon, better accommodation) mainly private → limited weight

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011106
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0885564f-b797-4f7d-bf20-6bfd22588ff9

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011106.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.