# 13 Temperance Hill, Woolley Moor (rear first-floor extension)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Richard Gilbert
- **Authority:** North East Derbyshire (East Midlands)
- **Appeal reference:** 6011648
- **Application reference:** 26/00145/FLH
- **Procedure:** householder
- **Development:** Rear first-floor pitched-roof extension to a semi-detached house in the countryside
- **Site context:** open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), fn25, DP3(3), S5(2)
- **Development plan policies:** North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2021 SS9, LC5, SDC3, SDC12
- **Main issues:** character and appearance in the countryside
- **Tags:** householder, s5-1-c-reuse, fn25-baseline-2026, dp3-3-refusal, s5-2-refusal-policy, local-policy-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, disproportionate-extension

## Summary
A householder appeal in the countryside that sets out two important readings of the new Framework. First, under S5(1)(c) and footnote 25, proportionality is measured against the building as it stood on 17 August 2026. Earlier extensions are therefore excluded, and a 22.4% addition was not disproportionate even though the cumulative increase was 70.6%. Second, a DP3 design conflict engages DP3(3) and S5(2), and that alone was enough to dismiss.

## Issues and findings
- **Character: HARM.** "a large new area of blank wall would be created at height … the proposal would cumulatively increase the original volume of the host dwelling by approximately 70.6% … disproportionate … unsympathetic to its simple form and modest scale" (DL ¶7).
- **Local plan vs Framework.** "Whilst the proposal is required to be assessed as a new dwelling by the development plan, this does not apply to the Framework" (DL ¶15).
- **S5(1)(c) and the 2026 baseline: PASS.** "any extension or alteration would not result in a disproportionate increase in size to the existing building as of 17 August 2026" (DL ¶15). "Although the proposed extension would increase the overall additions to the property to approximately 70.6% of its original volume, independently it represents an increase of approximately 22.4% as of 17 August 2026. This is not considered to be a disproportionate increase when existing extensions are excluded … This material consideration limits the weight to be attached to the proposal's conflict with Policy SS9" (DL ¶16).
- **DP3(3) and S5(2): FAIL.** "Policy DP3(3) … states that development should be refused if, without clear justification, it conflicts with Policy DP3(1) … This conflict amounts to a substantial adverse effect in the planning balance in accordance with Policies DP3(3) and S5(2)" (DL ¶18).

## Planning balance
The S5(1)(c) route was engaged. Benefits (construction jobs and private living space) got limited weight. Against them: substantial adverse effect from design conflict under DP3(3)/S5(2). The benefits were "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶19).

## What made the difference
Design, not size. The new footnote 25 baseline saved the scheme on proportionality, but the tall blank rear gable conflicted with DP3(1) context, and DP3(3) turned that into a refusal policy. A lower, subordinate design (e.g. dormer-style, as at No. 8) would likely have passed.

## Transferable points
- For S5(1)(c) (and by analogy GB7), footnote 25 fixes the "existing building" at 17 August 2026. Pre-2026 extensions fall out of the proportionality calculation (DL ¶15-16).
- Local policies that assess large countryside extensions as new dwellings have diminished weight where S5(1)(c) is met (DL ¶16, 18).
- DP3(3) conflict counts as an S5(2) circumstance and can be decisive even for a householder extension within a listed S5(1) category (DL ¶18-19).

## Policy findings
- **S5(1)(c): pass.** extension of an existing lawful, permanent building; proportionality measured against the building as at 17 Aug 2026 (fn25) - 22.4% increase, not disproportionate, though 70.6% over the original (DL 15-16)
- **fn25: pass.** the existing-building baseline is the property as at 17 Aug 2026, so earlier extensions are excluded (DL 15-16)
- **DP3(3): fail (substantial weight).** conflict with LC5 character and appearance; DP3(3) says refuse without clear justification; "substantial adverse effect" in balance (DL 7, 18)
- **S5(2): fail.** DP3(3) is a refusal-in-specific-circumstances policy; benefits (limited) substantially outweighed (DL 18-19)
- **Transitional(2): conflict (limited weight).** SS9 (assess large countryside extensions as new dwellings) has "diminished weight" because of S5(1)(c) (DL 15-16, 18)

## Key facts
- Stone semi at end of a rural row, gable exposed to public views across open land
- Cumulative volume increase over the original 70.6%; this extension alone 22.4%
- Local plan LC5 treats significant countryside extensions as new dwellings under SS9
- Parties consulted on the new Framework (DL 3)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011648
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/98702e1c-d19b-4e22-8f7b-51de506edbfa

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011648.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.