# Little Paddock, Lycrome Road, Chesham

- **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Lewis Condé
- **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6011692
- **Application reference:** PL/26/02342/FA
- **Procedure:** householder
- **Development:** Single-storey front extension (garage linked by covered canopy)
- **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:** Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (consolidated 2011) GB2, GB13, GB15
- **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, VSC
- **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, householder, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, transitional-no-consultation, absence-of-harm-neutral

## Summary
Front garage extension to an already-extended Green Belt dwelling. Dismissed. The cumulative increase of more than 80% over the original building was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). There was limited openness harm and no VSC.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "there have not been any fundamental changes to national policy that have necessitated re-consultation" (DL ¶2).
- **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "Viewed in isolation, the proposed single-storey extension would not be excessive … However, the original dwelling has already been enlarged … the cumulative floor area exceeding 80% of that of the original building. Although percentage increases are not determinative in themselves, an enlargement of this scale is a significant material consideration" (DL ¶9).
- **Openness.** "Whilst the loss of openness would be limited, the Framework requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt" (DL ¶12).
- The absence of other harm "is a neutral consideration rather than a benefit" (DL ¶14).

## Planning balance
GB6(2): considerations "do not clearly outweigh that harm" (DL ¶15).

## What made the difference
Earlier extensions used up the headroom for further additions.

## Transferable points
- Proportionality is judged cumulatively against the original building; a cumulative increase above 80% weighs heavily toward "disproportionate" (DL ¶9).
- An absence of harm on other matters is neutral (DL ¶14).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(b): fail.** after earlier side and rear extensions, cumulative floor area would exceed 80% over the original; disproportionate (DL 7-11)
- **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** limited loss of openness; no VSC; absence of other harm is neutral (DL 12-15)

## Key facts
- Dwelling in a small cluster of houses, already extended to the side and rear
- Even on the appellant's lower figures, cumulative increase over the original exceeds 80%
- Local Plan Green Belt policies given less weight than the Framework because they are not wholly consistent with it

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011692
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/229be156-8842-40c2-adf0-3b03ddaccf64

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011692.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.