- Decision
- approved, 11 September 2026
- Decided by
- Council officer (delegated): Bromsgrove DC (delegated)
- Authority
- Bromsgrove (West Midlands)
- Application reference
- 26/00434/FUL
- Procedure
- delegated
- Development
- Demolition of a bungalow and erection of a part two-storey replacement self-build dwelling
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- green belt, open countryside
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(b), GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- Bromsgrove District Plan 2017 BDP1, BDP2, BDP4, BDP7, BDP16, BDP19, BDP21, BDP23
- Main issues
- replacement building materially larger; fallback; personal circumstances
Summary
A replacement dwelling in the Green Belt about 21% larger in floor area and 17% in volume than the bungalow it replaces. It was therefore "materially larger" and fails GB7(1)(b). Very special circumstances were found in a larger-home extension prior approval, which would give a bigger building than the proposal, together with the medical needs of the applicants' child. Permission was granted.
Issues and findings
- GB7(1)(b): FAIL. "the proposed dwelling would result in an increase in the floor area of approx. 21% above the existing dwelling and an increase in volume of approx. 17% … This level of increase is considered to be material. The proposal is therefore considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt" (Notice p.4 to 5).
- Openness. "some limited harm to the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt in this area when compared to the existing dwelling" (p.5).
Planning balance
GB6(2). "When comparing the size of the proposed dwelling against the existing dwelling with the addition of the approved larger homes extension, the proposal is shown to be slightly smaller … on balance the fall back position would be more harmful to the Green Belt than the proposed" (p.7). Personal circumstances: "a child's best interest to be a primary consideration" (p.7). "on balance the permitted development fall back and the personal circumstances … would outweigh the harm … in terms of inappropriateness and any other harm" (p.7).
What made the difference
The prior approval set a benchmark larger than the proposal, so the proposal's Green Belt harm counted for little against it. The child's needs added weight.
Transferable points
- Officers treat increases of about 17 to 21% as "material" for GB7(1)(b) replacement buildings. There is no fixed percentage.
- A larger-home prior approval is a credible fallback for a replacement dwelling in the Green Belt when compared on volume and footprint.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(b) | fail | about +21% floor area and +17% volume is "material", so not "not materially larger" | |
| GB6(2) | pass | substantial | very special circumstances from a larger-home extension prior approval fallback (25/00890/HHPRIO), under which the dwelling plus extension would be larger than the proposal, together with a child's medical needs (Article 8 and UNCRC art 3) |
Key facts
- The replacement's ridge is 400 mm lower than the existing bungalow's
- Existing plus approved larger-home extension is about 7 m² larger in floor area and 51 m³ larger in volume than the proposed dwelling
- A purpose-built space for a disabled child's daily physiotherapy and care needs
- Permitted development Classes A, B, D and E removed by condition
- Self-build unilateral undertaking, so exempt from BNG
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.