# 2 Killy Hill, Chobham

- **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Ellis
- **Authority:** Surrey Heath (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6012106
- **Application reference:** 26/0127/FFU
- **Procedure:** householder
- **Development:** Two-storey side extension and single-storey rear extension following partial demolition
- **Site context:** green-belt
- **Green Belt:** yes
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2)
- **Main issues:** openness, VSC balance incl. fallback
- **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, fallback, pd-fallback-not-reliable, transitional-no-consultation, householder

## Summary
Side and rear extensions at an end-of-terrace house in the Green Belt, accepted as inappropriate. The appellant relied on a permitted development fallback backed by a lawful development certificate. The Inspector gave it only moderate weight, because parts of it could be built in addition to the appeal scheme. VSC was not shown and the appeal was dismissed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The parts of the Framework relevant to this appeal have not substantively changed. I have therefore not sought further submissions" (DL ¶2).
- **Inappropriateness** agreed (DL ¶4). **Openness:** "whilst localised, there would be harm to both the spatial and visual aspects" (DL ¶8).
- **Fallback: moderate weight.** "the dormer and outbuilding are independent elements that could also be implemented alongside the appeal proposal" (DL ¶12). "a condition removing permitted development rights would take effect only upon implementation of the appeal scheme, leaving scope for elements of the fallback … to be undertaken beforehand" (DL ¶13). Mansell v Tonbridge & Malling [2017] EWCA Civ 1314 was considered (DL ¶15).

## Planning balance
GB6(2): substantial weight to GB harm. Moderate weight to the fallback and limited weight to extra living space. VSC not shown (DL ¶¶18–20).

## What made the difference
The fallback was not a genuine alternative: the elements were separable and could be combined with the appeal scheme, so it did not guarantee a net improvement.

## Transferable points
- A PD fallback is weakened where its elements could be built in addition to the appeal scheme (DL ¶¶12–14).
- A condition removing PD rights cannot stop fallback works being done before the permission is implemented (DL ¶13).
- Design is not a Green Belt consideration when comparing a fallback (DL ¶11).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(b): fail.** agreed inappropriate (disproportionate); very similar to scheme dismissed Aug 2025 (3365476) (DL 4)
- **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** localised spatial and visual openness harm; side extension up to the boundary beside woodland footpath (DL 7-8, 18)
- **fallback: benefit (moderate weight).** LDC-backed PD fallback (full-width dormer, side/rear extension, cabin) is realistic, but dormer and cabin could be built as well as the appeal scheme, and a PD-removal condition bites only on implementation (DL 9-14)

## Key facts
- End-of-terrace house beside woodland and a public footpath
- Previous similar appeal dismissed August 2025 (ref 3365476)
- PD fallback supported by lawful development certificate 25/1208/CES; c.8 sqm more floor area than the proposal

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012106
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e3d6fec9-cd0d-4ef8-8ae4-b5ccd2e098e3

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012106.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.