GB6(1): no GB7 category, so inappropriate

Appeal 6011489 · Dacorum · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026

• GB7(1)(f)(iii) pass the use of the land for mindfulness, stretching, nature-based activity and therapeutic horticulture accepted as recreational and consistent with limb (iii) (DL 6)
• GB7(1)(f)(iv) fail no reason shown why the building is necessary to support the outdoor use; one-to-one consultations do not depend on a Green Belt location; the building takes a large part of a very small site, so it is not an "appropriate facility"; openness harmed (DL 6-9)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate; openness harm from a large glazed office building on undeveloped land; VSC not shown (DL 8-9, 16-18)

A small plot of Green Belt pasture near Hemel Hempstead was to be used for appointment-only outdoor wellbeing sessions, with a prefabricated office unit for consultations. The inspector accepted the use of the land as outdoor recreation under GB7(1)(f)(iii) but found the building was not an "appropriate facility" under (f)(iv): nothing showed it was needed for the outdoor use. The scheme was inappropriate, with added harm to highway safety and character, and very special circumstances were not shown. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6012115 · Dorset · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(f)(iii) fail the limb is not open-ended: because of the words "such as", uses within it take their flavour from the examples given; it does not cover the provision of a static caravan (DL 9)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail bus stops on the A31 0.6 miles (appellant) or over 1 km (Council) away along a mostly unlit pavement; uncontrolled crossing of heavy traffic to the northbound stop; occupants heavily reliant on the car (DL 10-13)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) not-engaged grey belt and unmet need limbs not decided; (g) failed on limb (iii) alone because all four criteria must be met (DL 13)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate; moderate spatial and moderate visual openness harm from a semi-permanent caravan, independent access, comings and goings and domestic paraphernalia; VSC not shown (DL 16-18, 24-25)

A static caravan let as a separate home, with its own access, on garden land in the Green Belt at St Leonards and St Ives. The inspector held that stationing a caravan as a home is not a change in the use of land of the kind GB7(1)(f)(iii) covers, and that the site fails the sustainable location limb of GB7(1)(g) because the walk to the A31 bus stops is long, mostly unlit and ends at an uncontrolled crossing. The scheme was inappropriate, and one small home did not amount to very special circumstances. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010213 · Cheshire East · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(a) fail alpacas can be livestock (s336), but no evidence of an established agricultural enterprise; site promoted for camping, weddings, kayak hire and alpaca experiences; container and hardstanding not shown to be reasonably required; "biosecurity shelter" was a tiled shower (DL 9-17)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt (DL 18)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) fail usefulness to an intended activity is not an evidenced unmet need; only the appellant's assertions (DL 19)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; limited, localised spatial and visual loss of openness; VSC not shown (DL 21-23, 33-34)

Retrospective permission for a shipping container, two timber shelters and stone hardstanding on a Green Belt field at Disley, said to support four alpacas. There was no evidence of an established agricultural enterprise, and signs of camping, wedding and experience uses, so GB7(1)(a) did not apply. The site was accepted as grey belt, but GB7(1)(g)(ii) failed because nothing showed an evidenced unmet need for the development. Inappropriate, with limited openness harm and moderate character harm; no VSC. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007668 · Newcastle-under-Lyme · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail not in a sustainable location, so (g) fails whatever the position on (i) and (ii) (DL 24, 26)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) not-engaged self-build shortfall evidence incomplete and no evidence of a five-year supply shortfall; not decided because (iii) fails (DL 25-26)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; footprint about three times the ruined brick building; significant loss of spatial and visual openness; encroachment (DL 28-30, 45-48)

One self-build plot in an open Green Belt field beyond the end of a rural lane near Newcastle-under-Lyme. The inspector tested the route in detail: the quiet no-through lane itself was walkable, but it ends at the A53 with no footway, and the only bus runs six times a day with no evenings or Sundays. That failed TR3 and GB7(1)(g)(iii), so the dwelling was inappropriate. With openness and character harm and modest benefits, VSC did not exist. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009919 · Thurrock · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(e) fail not available because the site as a whole is not PDL (DL 15)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass purpose (c) encroachment argued under the "fundamentally undermine" limb; not so significant (DL 18-19)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) fail no evidence of the family member's needs, local self-build need, or need for a pool; future bungalow use theoretical (DL 20-21)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass Fobbing very limited services, bus 4 times a day; lit, largely level pavement to Corringham shops; "sustainably located having regard to its rural situation" (DL 22)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; significant loss of spatial openness, moderate visual; VSC not shown (DL 24-28, 46)

A covered pool and "eco annexe" on a former builder's yard behind two houses in Fobbing, a washed-over Green Belt village and conservation area. Only part of the site was PDL, so GB7(1)(e) failed. The site was grey belt and the location passed (g)(iii), but there was no evidenced unmet need for an annexe and pool, so (g)(ii) failed and the scheme was inappropriate. With openness loss and moderate conservation-area harm, VSC was not shown. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010411 · Wirral · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• GB7(1)(c) fail Caldy agreed to be a village and the scheme limited, but the Telegraph Road ribbon reads as separate from the village behind green space and mature trees, and the site has houses on one side only; not infilling (DL 8-12, 19)
• GB6(2) fail modest visual and spatial openness harm; substantial weight at DL 15 but "significant weight" at DL 21; VSC not shown (DL 13-15, 21)

Permission in principle for up to three houses on paddocks in the Wirral Green Belt, beside a ribbon of houses on Telegraph Road near Caldy. Both parties accepted Caldy as a village and the scheme as limited, but the inspector found the ribbon visually separate from the village and the site bounded by houses on one side only, so it was not limited infilling in a village under GB7(1)(c). Inappropriate development with modest openness harm; limited housing weight; no VSC. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006224 · East Hertfordshire · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 4 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt (DL 9)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no five-year supply, so evidenced unmet need (DL 9)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail not a sustainable location, so the (g) exception fails and the scheme is inappropriate (DL 18)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate development plus spatial and visual loss of openness; VSC not shown (DL 21, 33)

Permission in principle for up to four homes on open land in the Green Belt between Hertford and Ware. Grey belt and unmet need (3.4 to 3.7 years' supply) were accepted, but limb (iii) failed. The site is 0.72 km and 1.15 km from the edges of the two towns, with services further on, reached along a mostly single-track, unlit lane with no pavement. A Connectivity Tool score of 49, in the 90th percentile for its rural class, did not rescue it. As inappropriate development causing openness harm, substantial weight to housing did not clearly outweigh. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010253 · Cheshire East · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass undisputed (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no five-year supply (3.3 years Council, 3.8 appellant) (DL 11, 32)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail bus stop about 550 m in the village; route beyond the village edge unlit, no footways, national speed limit, incline, little refuge; supermarkets, GP and station (about 4.5 km) in Macclesfield; heavy car reliance notwithstanding small scale (DL 12-23)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; significant openness harm from building on an open field; benefits significant but VSC not shown (DL 25-26, 29, 35)

Permission in principle for one dwelling on a field beyond the edge of Langley, near Macclesfield, in the Green Belt. Grey belt and unmet need (3.3-year supply) were undisputed, but GB7(1)(g)(iii) failed: the walk to the village bus stop is on an unlit, footway-free lane at the national speed limit, and a Connectivity Tool score of 25 came with no useful detail. Small scale did not help. As inappropriate development with significant openness harm, significant housing weight did not clearly outweigh. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

26/01447/FUL · Stratford-on-Avon · Council (delegated) · 28 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(a) fail the shop supports a farm business but "the development itself is a retail shop, namely a farm shop which is not agricultural in use" (p.5)
• GB7(1)(e) fail the land "has not been lawfully developed" and was in agricultural use; the report cites the Annex B exclusion of land last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings (p.5)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) fail "there is not an evidenced unmet need for the type of development proposed" (p.5); no finding on grey belt, limb (i)
• GB6(2) pass inappropriate; very special circumstances accepted - the holding is the only lawful place for the farm to sell eggs direct to consumers, and the shop brings about 20% of farm income (p.6); the conclusion says the need "would outweigh the harm", without the word "clearly"

A retrospective farm shop on an egg farm in the Green Belt at Kings Coughton, near Alcester, granted under delegated powers on 28 September 2026. The officer went through every category in GB7(1) and found that none applied, so the shop was inappropriate development. Very special circumstances were then accepted: the farm can lawfully sell eggs direct to the public only at the holding, and the shop brings about a fifth of its income. The report is a scanned image and was read by OCR; page numbers are PDF pages.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010709 · Epping Forest · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(c) fail judged on the ground (Wood v SSCLG); no discernible group of houses, so not within a village; 1.3 ha / 120 vehicles not "limited infilling" (DL 7-12)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) fail need must be for the type of development (B8), not this operator at this place; no market signals, occupancy or allocation-delivery evidence per E2(2) (DL 15-23)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; moderate visual and spatial openness harm; benefits substantial overall but VSC not shown (DL 25, 34-35)

Retrospective vehicle storage on 1.3 ha of Green Belt at Nazeing for a truck repair business. The land was accepted as grey belt, but GB7(1)(g)(ii) failed: the evidence showed only this operator's difficulty finding premises, not an unmet need for B8 storage in the area. As inappropriate development with moderate openness harm, very special circumstances were not shown.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011889 · Buckinghamshire · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(b) pass conversion and extension of the stable agreed to fall within the exception; inspector saw no reason to differ (DL 5)
• GB7(1)(f)(iii) fail new garden and driveway are a change of use of undeveloped grassland to residential use; residential uses are outside the material-change-of-use exception (RB Kingston upon Thames v SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin)); no other exception applies; the letter writes "GB7(f)(iii)" (DL 6-7)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate development; domestic paraphernalia and parking would fail to preserve openness in spatial and visual terms; a 2024 inspector had called the effect of a similar curtilage limited but harmful (DL 8-12, 22-23)
• GB6(2) fail very special circumstances do not exist; one dwelling and biodiversity gain do not clearly outweigh the harm (DL 23)

Conversion and extension of a stable to a one-bedroom dwelling in the Green Belt and the Chilterns National Landscape was dismissed, for the third time on this site. The building works fell within GB7(1)(b). The new garden and driveway did not: they were a change of use of open grassland to residential use, which no GB7 exception covers. That made the proposal inappropriate development, and one dwelling with a modest biodiversity gain did not amount to very special circumstances.

Full summary and sources

26/01614/FUL · Stratford-on-Avon · Council (delegated) · 24 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail original dwelling about 374 m3, proposed about 970 m3, an increase of about 596 m3 or 159%; "clearly a disproportionate increase" (p.3); the notice writes "GB7(b)"
• GB7(1)(e) fail not PDL, and an extension is not "redevelopment" (p.8); the officer was also not satisfied that it "would avoid substantial harm to the openness" (p.10); the report and notice write "GB7(e)"
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; "some moderate harm to the openness" (p.4); fallback and design benefits "not considered sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm" (p.9)

A householder refusal in Earlswood, a village washed over by the Green Belt, issued under delegated powers on 24 September 2026. A two-storey side and rear extension would take the house from about 374 m3 to about 970 m3. The officer held that to be a disproportionate increase under GB7(1)(b), rejected the applicant's alternative case under GB7(1)(e) because a garden within a built-up area is not previously developed land, and found no very special circumstances. The report opens by applying the Annex B definition of settlement: the site is not within a settlement because it is in the Green Belt. The report is a scanned image and was read by OCR; page numbers are PDF pages.

Full summary and sources

Appeal APP/A2335/C/26/3378663 · Lancaster · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(e) fail "development that has never been lawful development is not capable of rendering land PDL" (DL 30)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) fail no evidence of unmet need for caravan storage or the embankment (the deemed application is for the use alleged, not a traveller site) (DL 31)
• GB6(2) harm visual and some spatial openness harm from caravans and earthworks; no VSC (DL 32-36)

Three linked enforcement appeals against caravans stored on a Green Belt field at Halton, with substantial earthworks. The appellants argued it was a three-pitch traveller site, but the inspector found the land was being used to store caravans, and the deemed application could only be for that use. Unlawful development cannot create PDL, so GB7(1)(e) failed. There was no evidence of unmet need for caravan storage, so (g) failed. The notice was upheld.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006637 · Warwick · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026 · 28 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass common ground (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass common ground; 1.96 yrs supply, 3,466 shortfall (DL 10, 56)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail Hatton Station has very few facilities; unlit Station Road without footways, narrow bridge; bus 1.1 km with twice-weekly service; station 350 m but not "well-connected" and only partly step-free; 28 homes are "significant movement" in context (DL 14-39)
• GB7(1)(h) not-engaged station fails "well-connected station" definition (fewer than 4 tph daytime; fewer than 2 tph each direction) (DL 18)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate; distinct spatial loss of openness on an undeveloped 1.17 ha site (DL 55)

28 affordable homes on a grey belt field next to Hatton Station, a small West Midlands Green Belt settlement, 350 m from a railway station reached along unlit Station Road with no footway. Dismissed after a hearing. The site failed GB7(1)(g)(iii): 28 homes would generate significant movement in this context, the location did not limit the need to travel, and the route to the station was unsafe for pedestrians. It also failed GB8(1)(b), because the necessary local highway improvements were not secured. The station fell short of the "well-connected station" definition, so GB7(1)(h) was not available. Very significant weight to affordable housing (1.96 years' supply) did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008688 · Tandridge · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass one dwelling would not fundamentally undermine purposes of remaining GB across plan area (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 1.92-year supply = undisputed significant unmet need; no need to resolve self-build-specific need (DL 11)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail 2 km to East Grinstead centre and station; lit continuous but narrow footway beside busy road; two infrequent bus routes, none on Sundays; "finely balanced" (DL 14-17)
• GB7(1)(e) fail grassed land not shown to be residential curtilage, so not PDL (DL 9)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate development plus "significant" harm to spatial and visual openness (DL 19-26)

A single self-build house on grassed land beside Frith Manor, outside any settlement and about 2 km from East Grinstead. The Inspector accepted the land as grey belt and found unmet need established by the 1.92-year supply. However, the site failed GB7(1)(g)(iii)/TR3 even though a lit, continuous footway and bus stops were close by. The route and the service quality were not "genuinely attractive". Inappropriate development, significant openness harm and an unmitigated SPA effect were not clearly outweighed. The costs decision (separate PDF, `PINS-6008688-costs.pdf`) partly allowed costs against the Council for keeping a highway reason after the Highway Authority withdrew its objection.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008723 · Sefton · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026 · 4 homes

• GB7(1)(g) fail not grey belt, so (g) unavailable; (ii)-(iii) not reached (DL 20)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; visual and spatial openness harm; VSC not shown (DL 21-25, 30-31)

Permission in principle for up to four bungalows on open former farmland at the edge of Lydiate was refused on appeal. The key finding was that Lydiate and Maghull form a single large built-up area, so the site strongly contributes to Green Belt purpose (a) and is not grey belt. The scheme was inappropriate development, harmed openness, and its moderate benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008866 · South Staffordshire · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(f)(iv) fail equestrian facilities are outdoor recreation in connection with existing use, but close-board front fencing does not "minimise" impact on openness, so exception fails regardless of purposes (DL 9-14)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate development plus visual openness harm; VSC not shown (DL 33-38)

Part-retrospective stables, hardstanding, access and front close-board fencing on an equestrian site in the South Staffordshire Green Belt. Dismissed. The stable building was acceptable, but the close-board fencing meant the scheme did not "minimise" the impact on openness, so it fell outside the GB7(1)(f)(iv) outdoor recreation exception. Horse welfare benefits (moderate weight) did not clearly outweigh the harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009281 · Buckinghamshire · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026 · 4 homes

• GB7(1)(e) fail manège is fixed surface infrastructure but covers about a third of the site, so the site as a whole is not PDL; four houses would in any case cause moderate harm to openness (DL 9-11)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) fail not grey belt so (g) fails; remaining limbs not reached (DL 18-19)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate development plus moderate spatial/visual openness harm (DL 10, 23, 25)

Outline scheme for up to four houses on a manège and garden land on the open side of Denham Lane, at the edge of Chalfont St Peter. It was dismissed. The site was not PDL as a whole under GB7(1)(e) and was held not to be grey belt, because it makes a strong contribution to purpose (a) on the council's draft 2026 Green Belt Assessment. So the development was inappropriate. Four homes against an acute shortfall, in an accessible location, did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009962 · Guildford · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail bungalow to two storeys plus triple garage; floorspace uplift 56% (appellant) to 75% (Council); bulk and massing make it unrecognisable; disproportionate (DL 12-15)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) fail extension gives no net gain in housing, so neutral for unmet need despite lack of 5YHLS; self-build claim unsecured (DL 17)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate plus spatial openness loss, limited public views (DL 18, 23)

Extensions turning a Green Belt bungalow at Worplesdon into a two-storey house with a triple garage. Dismissed on non-determination. The additions were disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). The appellant's grey belt argument failed at limb (ii), because an extension adds no dwelling and so meets no unmet housing need, even though Guildford lacks a five-year supply.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007428 · West Lancashire · Appeal · 22 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass 1-3 dwellings would not fundamentally undermine purposes across the plan area (DL 20)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no five-year supply = unmet need (figure not stated) (DL 20)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail 60 mph narrow hedged lane used by agricultural traffic, no footway between site and pedestrian network; some street lighting does not overcome this (DL 12-16, 19)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major (DL 20)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate development plus localised spatial and visual openness harm (DL 21-24)

A PIP for up to three dwellings on a gap along a rural 60 mph lane in the West Lancashire Green Belt. The site was accepted as grey belt and unmet need was established. However, the lack of any footway between the site and the pedestrian network at Southport Road meant it failed GB7(1)(g)(iii)/TR3, even though the distance was short and some street lighting existed. As inappropriate development with openness harm, it was dismissed on the VSC balance. The S5(5) balance was expressly held not to be engaged.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010236 · Bracknell Forest · Appeal · 22 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail original 361 m³, existing 793 m³, proposed 888 m³ → c.145% cumulative increase vs LP guide of 40% → disproportionate (DL 5-8)
• GB6(2) harm limited spatial harm; largely enclosed by existing building so limited visual harm (DL 9-11, 16)

A small further extension to an already much-extended semi-detached house in the Green Belt at Ascot. The appeal was dismissed. Cumulatively it would take the house to about 145% over its original volume, which is disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), even though the new element is small and enclosed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010525 · Guildford · Appeal · 22 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail carport treated as extension; original 103 sqm, existing 145 sqm, proposed 178.5 sqm = just over 73% cumulative — disproportionate (DL 6-9)
• GB6(2) harm demonstrable spatial and visual openness loss; no other considerations; absence of other harm neutral (DL 11-15)

A detached oak carport treated as an extension. With previous additions it would take the dwelling just over 73% above the original, which is disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). It was dismissed; nothing weighed in its favour.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011736 · Tandridge · Appeal · 22 Sept 2026 · 7 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass undisputed (DL 11)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass undisputed; 2.17-year supply (DL 11, 16)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail 1 km / 15-minute walk to shop, school, village hall along mainly unlit 30-40 mph road with a section walking in the carriageway; hourly bus; Connectivity Tool score 52/100; no genuine choice of modes (DL 4-7, 11)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate plus clear openness harm (DL 13-14, 17)

Seven houses on an open site off Copthorne Bank, about 1 km from Copthorne's shop, school and village hall. Grey belt, unmet need and the Golden Rules limb were undisputed. The appeal was **dismissed on GB7(1)(g)(iii)**. The walk is along a mainly unlit road with a stretch in the carriageway, so it is unattractive, and an hourly bus did not provide a "genuine choice" of modes. This was so despite a Connectivity Tool score of 52/100 and £250 travel vouchers. The scheme was therefore inappropriate, and moderate housing benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6012481 · Sevenoaks · Appeal · 22 Sept 2026 · 6 homes

• GB7(1)(e) fail open grass field with no built form is not PDL; adjacent PDL (found in earlier enforcement appeal) does not make the whole site PDL (DL 8-10)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass agreed (DL 12)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass agreed; 2.96 yrs supply (DL 12, 42)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail undisputed poor Connectivity Tool score; nearest settlement (Well Hill) has few services; no accessible public transport; no lighting, footways or cycle lanes (DL 13-17)
• GB6(2) harm substantial harm to spatial and visual openness from up to six dwellings (1,600 m3) on an open field; VSC not shown (DL 19-21, 51-52)

Outline proposal for up to six dwellings on an open field next to the M25, offset by removing nearby commercial buildings. Dismissed. Grey belt and unmet need were agreed, but the site failed GB7(1)(g)(iii): it scored poorly on the Connectivity Tool, had no public transport, and was reached by unlit rural roads without footways. The scheme was therefore inappropriate development, and no very special circumstances were shown. Missing protected-species surveys, M25 noise and poor access visibility added to the harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6003001 · Reigate and Banstead · Appeal · 21 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(ii) fail no details given of an evidenced unmet need for housing in the area (DL 7-8)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail "not in a sustainable location", though one dwelling would not generate significant movement (DL 7)
• GB7(1)(b) fail relocated into an open field outside curtilage a significant distance away, so not a replacement; baseline is the physical building, not an unimplemented extension permission (Athlone House) (DL 13-21)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; materially greater effect on openness, visual and spatial (DL 10, 21, 41)

Demolition of a curtilage-listed stables building (used as a dwelling) and a new single-storey dwelling in an adjoining open field in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The land was grey belt, but GB7(1)(g) failed for want of evidenced unmet need and a sustainable location. It was not a "replacement" under GB7(1)(b) because it moved to a different site. Openness, character and heritage harms were unjustified, and no VSC was shown. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008659 · Gateshead · Appeal · 21 Sept 2026

• GB7 fail agreed no GB7 exception applies; GB7 list "broadly consistent" with the previous Framework (DL 5-6)
• GB6(2) harm moderate spatial and visual openness harm from an isolated hut in an open pastoral field (DL 10-11, 27-28)

Retrospective holiday-let shepherd's hut in an open field in the Green Belt, inside Bradley Park Conservation Area and beside a Grade II Registered Park and Garden. Dismissed. The parties agreed it was inappropriate development. It caused moderate openness harm and low-to-moderate heritage harm, against limited tourism benefits, so there were no VSC.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009966 · Tandridge · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• GB7(1)(e) fail paddock; no evidence of permanent structure or fixed surface infrastructure, so not PDL (DL 13)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass common ground, would not fundamentally undermine purposes of remaining GB (DL 16)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no 5YHLS, so unmet need (DL 17)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail 800 m to settlement edge, services a similar distance beyond; 40/30 mph lanes, no continuous footways or lighting; hail-and-ride bus unevidenced (DL 21-23, 28)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; significant/substantial openness harm and encroachment (purpose c); VSC not shown (DL 33, 44-46)

Permission in principle for up to 5 dwellings on a paddock in the Green Belt, about 800 m outside South Nutfield. Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i) and (ii) were all common ground. The appeal failed on limb (iii) sustainable location, because the walking and cycling routes are unlit lanes with no continuous footway and the bus evidence was thin. As inappropriate development, substantial weight to the housing benefit did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt, openness, character and travel harms.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011972 · Tandridge · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026 · 8 homes

• GB7(1)(e) fail agreed PDL; footprint and volume fall, but eight taller (8.6 m), bulkier two-storey houses with curtilages and roads → substantial harm to openness (DL 6-11)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate plus spatial and visual openness harm; VSC not shown (DL 17-18)

Eight detached houses replacing equestrian buildings at Newchapel, the same area as Branford Wells (PINS-6010313). Dismissed. The site was agreed PDL, but eight two-storey houses would be taller, bulkier and more conspicuous than the low stables, so they would cause substantial harm to openness and fail GB7(1)(e). The site was also car-dependent under TR3. Moderate overall benefits against 1.92 years' supply did not clearly outweigh the harm. Grey belt (GB7(1)(g)) was not argued or considered.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6012106 · Surrey Heath · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail agreed inappropriate (disproportionate); very similar to scheme dismissed Aug 2025 (3365476) (DL 4)
• GB6(2) harm localised spatial and visual openness harm; side extension up to the boundary beside woodland footpath (DL 7-8, 18)

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.

Full summary and sources

W/26/01639/PIP · Wychavon · Council (delegated) · 18 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• GB7(1)(c) fail not limited infilling in a village; the site extends development north-east along Wood Lane rather than filling a gap, following the earlier appeal (PINS 6001105)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass grey belt accepted, following the Inspector's finding on the larger site
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) fail five-year supply now demonstrated after SWDPR adoption (the appeal had found 1.1 years); HDT 133%
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail Connectivity Tool score 23; limited bus service; narrow, mostly unlit pedestrian routes; residents would rely on the car
• GB7(1)(h) not-engaged no well-connected station
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate development; material harm to openness; very special circumstances not shown

A permission-in-principle bid for up to five homes on paddock land at New End, Astwood Bank, in the Green Belt. It followed an appeal refusal of nine homes on a larger site that included this land. The officer accepted the Inspector's grey belt finding but refused on two grounds. GB7(1)(g)(ii) now fails because adopting the SWDPR restored a five-year supply. GB7(1)(g)(iii) fails because the location is car-dependent, with a Connectivity Tool score of 23 and narrow, unlit walking routes. This is one of the clearest early examples of the grey belt route failing on the need and location limbs even though grey belt status is accepted.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6005088 · Sevenoaks · Appeal · 16 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail new building, not reuse/extension; as a "replacement" for the unbuilt approved pool building it is not the same use; layout suggests commercial use (DL 6-9)
• GB6(2) harm spatial/visual openness harm and encroachment; sited further from the building cluster than the approved pool building (DL 13-18)

An office-like "ancillary" outbuilding at a mixed-use farm complex in the Green Belt and High Weald National Landscape. The appellant offered a UU not to build a larger approved pool building. Dismissed. A new building is not covered by GB7(1)(b), and the swap failed because the appeal building would be sited further out and encroach more. There was also harm to the National Landscape.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008528 · Mole Valley · Appeal · 16 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(b) fail demolition of the old house was the justification for the replacement; keeping both makes the replacement new development, so the replacement exception no longer applies (DL 7)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass established residential curtilage outside any built-up area could be PDL; site does not strongly contribute to purposes (DL 9)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass Council now has a 5YHLS but HDT is below 75%, so footnote 41 unmet need is established (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail no footways or lighting on Beare Green Road; bus not shown to stop nearby; well separated from village and Holmwood station; Connectivity Tool score 25/100 (DL 11-13)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate development; openness harm given considerable weight; some encroachment (DL 17-19, 31)

The appellant sought to keep an original house, which was due to be demolished under a 2017 replacement-dwelling permission, as an extra dwelling in the Mole Valley Green Belt. Dismissed. Grey belt and unmet need were accepted: the Council has a five-year supply, but its HDT is below 75%. Limb (iii) sustainable location failed on an unlit lane with no footways, remote from the village and station, with a Connectivity Tool score of 25/100. A new driveway through ancient woodland separately failed N6.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011330 · North East Derbyshire · Appeal · 15 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) fail only the stables' squared-off curtilage is PDL; garden land beyond is not; the whole site must be PDL to qualify (DL 6-9)
• GB7(1)(f)(iii) fail residential garden is not a "material change in the use of land" under the exception — Kingston v SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin) (DL 8)
• GB6(2) harm harm to openness but below "substantial harm" threshold; minor encroachment (purpose c), potentially offset if polytunnel/hay store/glasshouse removed (DL 10, 13, 23)

An outline scheme to replace stables with one self-build house in the North East Derbyshire Green Belt. The appeal was dismissed. The house sat on previously developed land, but its necessary garden took in paddock outside the stables' curtilage. So the site was not wholly PDL and the GB7(1)(e) exception failed. A garden is not a "material change in the use of land" under GB7(1)(f)(iii). Moderate self-build and ecology benefits did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011691 · Guildford · Appeal · 15 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail original building 197 sqm; relocated 1990s barn is not part of the original building; cumulative extensions c.120% (208% with barn) → disproportionate even though orangery is only 25 sqm (DL 7-15)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriateness plus limited spatial and minimal visual harm (DL 17-18)

A 25 sqm glazed orangery at a heavily extended Green Belt house. Dismissed. Cumulative additions of about 120% over the 197 sqm original building were disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), and a barn relocated to the site in the 1990s could not be added into the "original building" baseline.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6012188 · West Lancashire · Appeal · 15 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(f)(iii) pass outdoor yoga is outdoor recreation; the change of use of the land falls within (f)(iii) (DL 8)
• GB7(1)(f)(iv) fail studio is an indoor yoga studio with a treatment room, not an appropriate facility; even if it were, it does not minimise impact on openness (domed roof conspicuous, gravel parking) (DL 9-13)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) fail no evidence of absence of local outdoor recreation provision or unmet need for yoga facilities; grey belt assumed arguendo; other limbs not considered (DL 15-16)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate development, spatial and visual openness loss (DL 12-13, 38)

Retrospective yoga studio with parking in a field behind a house in the West Lancashire Green Belt. Dismissed. Outdoor yoga counts as outdoor recreation, but the building was an indoor studio rather than an "appropriate facility" and it did not minimise the impact on openness, so it failed GB7(1)(f). The grey belt route also failed on limb (ii), because no unmet need for yoga facilities was evidenced. Substantial weight went to health benefits (HC4) and significant weight to biodiversity, but these did not clearly outweigh substantial Green Belt harm and substantial DP3 character harm.

Full summary and sources

2025/1444 · Elmbridge · Council committee · 15 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(f)(iv) fail outdoor sport facility but footprint 227.7→734.4 sqm, volume 877.9→3,946 m3, height 4.4→7 m, so impact on openness 'not minimised'
• GB6(2) pass VSC — community sports need (girls' teams, dilapidated facilities), strategic need, consolidation of five structures, club finances; significant weight; BNG 10% limited weight

A new clubhouse for a junior football club, replacing five scattered, dilapidated structures with one building more than three times the footprint and about four times the volume. Officers held it failed the "impact on openness is minimised" condition of GB7(1)(f)(iv), so it was inappropriate. They found very special circumstances in community sports need and consolidation, and the committee approved.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010260 · Shropshire · Appeal · 11 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• GB7(1)(e) fail former cottages on site had "blended into the landscape" through garden use, so excluded from PDL definition (DL 10-11)
• GB7(1)(a) not-engaged appellant cited it (and GB3(2)(a), a plan-making policy); nothing to show agriculture/forestry/nature use (DL 12)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate; limited spatial loss of openness, very limited visual (DL 15-16)

PIP for one or two houses in the garden of a rural cottage near Albrighton, on land that once held four earlier cottages. It was dismissed. The former buildings had "blended into the landscape", so the site was not PDL under GB7(1)(e). No other exception was argued, so the scheme was inappropriate. Location on a narrow, unlit, national-speed-limit lane added spatial-strategy and car-dependence harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011106 · Tandridge · Appeal · 11 Sept 2026

• 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 inappropriateness plus harm to openness from roof-level bulk visible from road (DL 9, 15)

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.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6012591 · Epping Forest · Appeal · 11 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail two-storey side extension at full ridge height, projecting beyond rear, "overwhelm the existing dwelling" → disproportionate vs 1948 original; plot size irrelevant (DL 6, 8)
• GB7(1)(e) fail Council-raised PDL route rejected because effect on openness would be substantial (DL 7)
• GB7(1)(b) fail detached outbuilding too distant, large and functionally separate (smallholding machinery) to be an "extension" → new building, inappropriate (DL 9)
• GB6(2) harm substantial / significant spatial and visual loss of openness (DL 11-13)

A two-storey side extension and a large detached garage/store at a rural house in the Epping Forest Green Belt. The appeal was dismissed. The extension was disproportionate. The outbuilding was too remote, large and functionally separate to count as an extension, so it was a new building. The PDL route under GB7(1)(e) also failed on substantial harm to openness.

Full summary and sources

26/00434/FUL · Bromsgrove · Council (delegated) · 11 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(b) fail about +21% floor area and +17% volume is "material", so not "not materially larger"
• GB6(2) pass 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)

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.

Full summary and sources

26/01310/FUL · Stratford-on-Avon · Council (delegated) · 11 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail a detached garage forward of the house is not an extension or alteration of the building; no GB7 category applies
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate development; spatial and visual harm to openness; no very special circumstances

A householder refusal in the washed-over Green Belt at Tanworth-in-Arden. A detached garage in the front garden, more than 5 m from the house, was held to be inappropriate development: it is not an "extension or alteration" under GB7(1)(b). It harmed openness, and no very special circumstances were shown. It was also refused on streetscene character under L2(1)(d) and CS.9. Refused under delegated powers on 11 September 2026.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6005495 · Cheshire West and Chester · Appeal · 10 Sept 2026 · 6 homes

• GB7(1)(g) fail grey belt not demonstrated; in any event the new-build dwelling is not in a sustainable location with reference to transport policies (DL 28)
• GB7(1)(b) not-engaged the "replacement dwelling" is a new additional dwelling; subdivision into two dwellings is unauthorised (DL 5-6, 28)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate; net volume reduction limits spatial harm, but visual openness harm from a new house on rising, open land (DL 29-32, 35)

Conversion of a Grade II* farmstead's traditional buildings, plus one new detached house presented as a "replacement dwelling". The conversions were acceptable and a heritage benefit. The new house was inappropriate in the Green Belt: it was not a replacement, grey belt was not shown, and it was in any event unsustainably located under TR3. It harmed visual openness and the setting of the farmhouse, and it failed S5(1)(j) because it was not well-related to a settlement. Dismissed. The joint LBC appeal (PINS-6005497) was dismissed on the same heritage reasoning.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007030 · Epping Forest · Appeal · 10 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(b) fail floor area 141 to 301 sqm, volume 583 to 1237 m3, ridge 5.5 to 8.46 m — over 100% increase so materially larger (DL 4-6)
• GB7(1)(e) fail first-floor height with no fallback causes "local substantial harm" to openness by blocking views to trees (DL 11-15)
• GB6(2) harm improved accommodation and short-term economic benefit not VSC; neutral on housing stock (DL 16-18)

Replacement of a single-storey 1960s bungalow with a two-storey self-build house that more than doubles floor area and volume. It was dismissed. The new building was "materially larger" under GB7(1)(b). Prior-approval and CLD fallbacks covered the ground-floor extensions, but not the added height. The first-floor bulk would cause substantial local harm to openness, so GB7(1)(e) also failed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6012026 · Wirral · Appeal · 10 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail 73% cumulative increase over original house plus garage vs new SPD 50% guide; two-storey spread across plot width (DL 9-11)
• GB6(2) harm significant openness harm — raises a low PD extension to two storeys, prominent; design and family accommodation neutral/limited (DL 12-17)

A retrospective first-floor side extension on a 1980s house at the fringe of Frankby. Together with other recent extensions it brought the cumulative increase to 73%, against a new SPD guide of 50%. It was dismissed as disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), with significant openness harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6005433 · Mole Valley · Appeal · 9 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(g)(ii) fail no substantive evidence of an unmet need for storage containers (DL 11)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail rural, relatively isolated, no nearby regular public transport, so users heavily car-reliant (DL 12-13)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; moderate openness harm, spatial and visual; VSC not shown (DL 16-18, 35-37)

Retention of two storage containers on grey belt land at Headley. This is a non-housing grey belt case: it failed GB7(1)(g)(ii) because there was no evidenced need for this type of development, and (iii) because the location is car-dependent. As inappropriate development causing moderate openness harm, AGLV character harm and low-level harm to a Grade II setting, it was dismissed with no VSC.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010292 · Welwyn Hatfield · Appeal · 9 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail replacement materially larger (eaves 2m→4.6m, ridge 4.6m→5.8m, roof turned 90°); and former timber/plywood/plastic shed was not of permanent and substantial construction (DL 8-12)
• GB7(1)(e) fail rural residential garden potentially PDL, but considerable volume increase = substantial harm to openness (DL 13)
• GB7(1)(b) fail as a detached "extension", cumulative additions threshold already passed (DL 14)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriateness and substantial loss of openness (DL 15)

A retrospective, part-built replacement of a flimsy garden shed with a much taller steel-framed building in the Hertfordshire Green Belt. The appeal was dismissed. It failed every route: GB7(1)(b) replacement (materially larger, and the old shed was not "permanent and substantial"), GB7(1)(e) PDL (substantial harm to openness), and GB7(1)(b) extension (the cumulative threshold was already passed).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010714 · Wyre Forest · Appeal · 9 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail total 661 m³ significantly exceeds SPD 75% floor-area/volume allowance on either party's figure → disproportionate (DL 5-8)
• GB6(2) harm limited overall loss of openness — side extension forward and two-storey visible from road (DL 9-12, 25)

Householder extensions to a semi-detached house in the Worcestershire Green Belt. The appeal was dismissed. The extensions were well beyond the SPD's 75% allowance and therefore disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). Permitted development and CLOPUD fallbacks got limited weight because they would be smaller and have no first floor at the side.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008579 · York · Appeal · 8 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail disproportionate; appellant offered no reason to disagree (DL 8)
• GB7(1)(e) fail site is PDL but extending a building that remains in situ is not "redevelopment" of PDL (following APP/C2741/D/25/3370861) (DL 9-12)
• GB6(2) harm considerable added bulk; spatial harm; visual harm limited by screening (DL 14-15)

Retrospective extensions to a converted granary in the York Green Belt. Dismissed. The extensions were disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). The appellant's reliance on the PDL redevelopment exception GB7(1)(e) failed, because extending a building that remains in place is not "redevelopment" of land. The permitted development fallback was unsupported by an LDC and got limited weight.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009068 · Cheshire East · Appeal · 7 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail disproportionate addition; with a 2003 two-storey addition and 1970s garage, increase ~57-112% (Inspector suggests ~80%) vs RUR 11 30% guide; openness and purposes irrelevant to proportionality (DL 9-14)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate; limited visual (not spatial) openness harm as no footprint increase; no conflict with GB2 purposes (DL 16-18, 44-46)

First-floor extension over an attached garage at an already-extended stone house in the Kerridge Conservation Area, in the Green Belt. Dismissed. Together with earlier additions, the extension was disproportionate to the original building, so it failed GB7(1)(b) and was inappropriate. There was limited visual openness harm and lower-end harm to the conservation area. The benefits were limited and did not clearly outweigh the harm, so VSC failed. A separate costs application for the Council's delay was refused.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010165 · Stafford · Appeal · 7 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(a) fail equipment store for maintaining private land, not agriculture/horticulture/forestry or nature conservation (DL 8)
• GB7(1)(b) fail replacement not in the same use and materially larger (DL 9)
• GB7(1)(e) fail concrete slab treated as PDL; limited visual harm, but much larger footprint and height → substantial harm to openness (DL 10-11)
• GB7(1)(f)(i) pass permeable paving engineering operation minimises openness impact (DL 13)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriateness and openness harm (DL 20)

A proposal to replace a stable block with a larger equipment store on a domestic landholding in the Green Belt and Cannock Chase National Landscape. Dismissed. It was not agricultural (GB7(1)(a)). It was not a like-for-like replacement (GB7(1)(b)). As PDL redevelopment (GB7(1)(e)) the extra bulk would cause substantial harm to spatial openness. Moderate-weight benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008745 · Dartford · Appeal · 4 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail existing extensions +93.5% over the original volume, proposal +13% more, so more than double; comparison is with the original building, not the existing one (DL 9-11)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) fail a desire for a larger house is not evidence of "demonstrable unmet need" (DL 14)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass extension "sustainably located in relation to the existing dwelling" (DL 15)
• GB6(2) fail limited openness harm; no VSC (DL 19-23)

Side extensions to an already much-extended cottage in the Dartford Green Belt. They failed GB7(1)(b), taking the cumulative increase to over double the original volume. The attempted GB7(1)(g) grey belt route for a householder extension also failed: wanting a bigger house is not an "evidenced unmet need". Limited openness harm, no VSC. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009260 · Windsor and Maidenhead · Appeal · 4 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail ~170% of the original floor area, ~270% with a first floor; significant volume increase (DL 8-10)
• GB6(2) harm limited, localised spatial and visual openness harm on an enclosed island site (DL 13)

Remodelling of a heavily extended 1960s bungalow into a chalet-style house with a new roof storey and six dormers. Dismissed. At roughly 170-270% of the original it was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), with limited openness harm, poor design and an inadequate FRA. No VSC.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010313 · Tandridge · Appeal · 4 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• GB7(1)(b) pass re-use of permanent and substantial building, no increase in size (DL 9); not reconciled with the later finding that the scheme is inappropriate (DL 14), presumably because curtilages and open land go beyond the building
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 1.97-year supply, shortfall over 3,000 homes = evidenced unmet need (DL 11)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail five dwellings in an area with very few homes = significant movement "in this context"; rural, away from settlements, facilities and buses; 40 mph lane without footways or lighting (DL 12-14)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; demonstrable loss of openness from curtilages and paraphernalia; VSC not shown (DL 17-18, 37-38)

Conversion of a barn complex to five dwellings in the Tandridge Green Belt, where supply is 1.97 years. Grey belt and unmet need were accepted, but GB7(1)(g)(iii) failed: the site is on a 40 mph lane with no footways or lighting, away from settlements and buses. As inappropriate development causing openness, heritage (Grade II setting), character and amenity harm, it did not show VSC even with an acute shortfall. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011692 · Buckinghamshire · Appeal · 4 Sept 2026

• 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 limited loss of openness; no VSC; absence of other harm is neutral (DL 12-15)

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.

Full summary and sources

Appeal APP/T2350/C/25/3374492 · Ribble Valley · Appeal · 3 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(a) fail agricultural use not shown — no livestock, no feed, domestic garden furniture/tools, half the building given to seating; "maintenance of land is not a land use" (DL 16-20)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate development; rural-economy considerations limited weight as unsupported; VSC not shown (DL 28-30)

Enforcement notice against a timber building and a CCTV pole on Green Belt land at Langho. The appellant said the building was used for agriculture (a small poultry and tractor store) and so was not inappropriate under GB7(1)(a). The inspector found the claim unevidenced: the building held domestic and garden items. The notice was corrected and upheld, and the deemed permission refused.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6005976 · Newcastle upon Tyne · Appeal · 3 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass long-established residential use with substantial built development; grey belt accepted (DL 12)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) fail family, multi-generational, mobility and security needs genuine, but not evidenced to require development of this scale; site already had substantial accommodation (DL 13-14)
• GB7(1)(b) fail annex alone roughly the size of the 2003 dwelling (the fn40 "original" baseline); detached annex and garage treated as additions; disproportionate (DL 15-16)
• GB6(2) harm substantial spatial openness harm though visual harm very limited because of screening (DL 17-19)

Retrospective extensions, a three-storey annex and a garage block at a large house in the Newcastle Green Belt. Dismissed. The site was accepted as grey belt, but GB7(1)(g)(ii) failed because the family's needs were not evidenced to require development of this scale. Under GB7(1)(b) the additions were disproportionate to the 2003 "original" dwelling. The resulting spatial openness harm was substantial even though visual harm was very limited.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6005603 · Gravesham · Appeal · 1 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail 71.69% floor area increase vs one-third LP C13 guide; disproportionate (DL 7-9)
• GB6(2) harm moderate openness harm; fallback (earlier permission of similar size) addresses inappropriateness and openness harm, but not design harm (DL 11-12, 21-26)

Partly built extensions to a semi-detached cottage, 71.69% larger than the original. They were disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). An extant permission of similar size was a fallback that neutralised the Green Belt and openness harm. But the as-built design, flush with the front and without a dropped ridge, caused character harm the fallback did not cover, so VSC failed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010078 · Calderdale · Appeal · 1 Sept 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail no floorspace or volume analysis of cumulative additions since the original building, so cannot be satisfied the increase is not disproportionate (DL 8-9)
• GB6(2) pass very limited openness harm; clear business need given "greater than substantial weight"; VSC shown (DL 10-11, 14)

A small kitchen extension to a Green Belt hotel. Found inappropriate only because nobody had quantified past additions to the original building, so the inspector could not rule out a disproportionate increase. VSC was nonetheless shown: very limited openness harm against a compelling business need. Allowed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6003507 · Calderdale · Appeal · 28 Aug 2026

• GB7(1)(f)(iv) fail private stable is an outdoor recreation facility and "seeks to minimise" openness impact, but conflicts with purpose (c) encroachment → exception not met; inspector applied 2024 "does not conflict" wording, not 2026 "significant conflict" (DL 6-12)
• GB6(2) harm spatial and visual harm to openness from new building, hardstanding and engineering works (DL 8-9, 23)

A private stable on an open valley side in the Calderdale Green Belt. The appeal was dismissed. The stable was an outdoor recreation facility and was designed to minimise its effect on openness, but it failed GB7(1)(f) because a new isolated building on open land conflicts with Green Belt purpose (c), countryside encroachment. There was also landscape harm, and the limited private benefits did not amount to VSC.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010273 · Dacorum · Appeal · 28 Aug 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail full-width raised patio on sloping land overwhelms modest bungalow; "proportionality does not rely only on specific measurements" (DL 7-9)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate plus moderate openness harm; visible from open land east and south (DL 10-12, 21)

Retrospective raised patio behind a new bungalow on sloping land at the Green Belt edge of Kings Langley. Dismissed. Its height and width made it a disproportionate addition under GB7(1)(b), causing moderate openness harm, plus character and privacy harm. The disabled occupier's need for accessible outdoor space got moderate weight but did not clearly outweigh the harm.

Full summary and sources

W/26/0134 · Warwick · Council (delegated) · 28 Aug 2026 · 1 home

• GB7 fail a new dwelling is not a GB7 exception; "well established in appeal decisions that … essential rural workers dwellings should be considered as inappropriate development"
• GB6(2) pass very special circumstances from the demonstrated essential need, modest single-storey scale and siting next to existing buildings

Outline permission for a permanent single-storey rural worker's dwelling in the Green Belt at Forge Farm, Shrewley (Claverdon postal area), replacing a temporary caravan at an equine rehabilitation yard. Warwick DC held that a new dwelling is inappropriate development because it is not a GB7 category. It treated a proven HO11(1)(a) essential need as very special circumstances.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008087 · Cheshire East · Appeal · 26 Aug 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail 71-100% over original dormer bungalow depending on method; well above 30% RUR11 guide even allowing infill-village latitude; bears little resemblance to original (DL 6-12)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate plus greater openness impact; enforcement-notice baseline comparison neutral, not VSC (DL 12, 20-25)

Proposal to regularise and reconfigure a heavily extended former dormer bungalow (subject to an enforcement notice) in a Green Belt infill village. It was dismissed. The result would be 71-100% larger than the original and "bear little resemblance" to it. That was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), and the comparison with the enforcement-notice baseline was neutral, not VSC.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6012008 · Brentwood · Appeal · 26 Aug 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail undisputed cumulative floor area increase of 239.4%; comparison is with the original building, not with larger neighbours (DL 5-10)
• GB6(2) harm limited spatial and visual openness harm in a context of large dwellings (DL 13-15)

Large rear extension and new first floor to a modest dwelling among larger houses. Dismissed. A cumulative increase of 239.4% was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), with limited openness harm and loss of light to a neighbour. No VSC.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007369 · Dorset · Appeal · 24 Aug 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail original bungalow doubled by a 1987 upward extension; garage enlarged ~110% in 1993 then converted to an annexe; cumulative increase well over 100%, so any further addition is disproportionate (DL 10-13)
• GB7(1)(e) fail residential garden curtilage is not PDL under Annex B (DL 9)
• GB6(2) harm moderate visual and spatial openness harm even though screened from public views (DL 16)

Small, screened extension to an annexe at a much-extended dwelling. Dismissed. Cumulative additions already exceeded 100% of the original building, so the extension was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). Garden land is not PDL, so (e) did not apply. There was moderate openness harm. Multi-generational and PSED considerations did not amount to VSC.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010567 · Brentwood · Appeal · 24 Aug 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail detached outbuilding treated as an extension (normal domestic adjunct, close to house); original already doubled, +30 sqm gives about 140% over original — disproportionate (DL 6-10)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate; openness preserved (very limited spatial effect) but no VSC; appellant's "limited harm" plea rejected (DL 11-14, 18-22)

A small detached gym outbuilding beside an already-doubled dwelling. The inspector treated it as an extension (Storer; Dawe). Cumulatively it was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), so inappropriate. Openness was preserved and the listed farmhouse setting was unharmed, but it was dismissed for want of VSC.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011065 · North East Derbyshire · Appeal · 24 Aug 2026

• GB7(1)(b) fail undisputed cumulative volume increase about 143% over original (124% already); comparison is with original not existing building (DL 6-9)
• GB6(2) harm limited visual openness harm above flat-roofed garage; no conflict with GB2 purposes; "technical conflict" framing rejected (DL 8, 11-12, 17-18)

First-floor extension over a garage at a much-extended house in the North East Derbyshire Green Belt. Dismissed. The cumulative volume increase of about 143% over the original was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). Substantial weight to enabling rooftop solar did not clearly outweigh substantial Green Belt harm.

Full summary and sources

25/01429/FUL · Bromsgrove · Council (delegated) · 21 Aug 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(b) fail a replacement must be "for the same use"; agricultural/equestrian to residential does not qualify
• GB7(1)(e) fail not PDL, because Annex B excludes land last occupied by agricultural buildings
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail rural site; first school 180 m away but no other facilities; bus one each way on Tuesdays and Fridays only
• GB6(2) pass very special circumstances shown by the Class Q fallback plus a reduction of 125.4 m³ in volume and 19.1 m² in footprint compared with the existing buildings

A new dwelling in place of a barn (with Class Q consent) and stables in the Green Belt at Dodford. It fails GB7(1)(b), because a replacement must be for the same use. It fails GB7(1)(e), because agricultural land is not PDL. It fails GB7(1)(g)(iii): with a bus on two days a week, the site is not in a sustainable location. It was therefore inappropriate development. Very special circumstances were found in the Class Q fallback combined with a net reduction in built volume, and the application was approved four days into the new Framework.

Full summary and sources

25/2168/OUT · Three Rivers · Council committee · 20 Aug 2026 · 70 homes

• GB7(1)(h)(i) fail Officers: Bushey (well-connected) c.1,100 m / 16 min walk via lit footways is 'around 800m'. Members: c.1,100 m does not meet 'around 800m'
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass Officers: lit footways, 30 mph road, hourly 346 bus, contributions; members still weighed 'sustainable location' as a (limited) benefit though several doubted it
• GB6(2) fail members held inappropriate; VSC not shown despite substantial weight to market and affordable housing

Outline scheme for up to 70 homes (50% affordable) on a Green Belt field at Oxhey Lane, on the edge of Watford Heath/Carpenders Park, in a district with a 1.2-year supply. Officers recommended approval. Three days after the new Framework was published, their addendum said the site was grey belt and also qualified under the new station route GB7(1)(h), treating Bushey station at about 1,100 m as "around 800m". Members refused 5-4. They held the site was not grey belt and that 1,100 m is not "around 800m". So the scheme was inappropriate, and the Golden Rules benefits did not amount to very special circumstances against Green Belt harm plus harm to a Grade II listed lodge.

Full summary and sources

24/01047/OUT · Basildon · Council committee · 19 Aug 2026 · 11 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass supply shortfall
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass immediately adjacent to settlement; school c.400 m
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) fail 11 dwellings = major; zero affordable vs 50% default; no viability evidence
• GB6(2) fail moderate harm to openness; 11 market homes 'limited' benefit, 'further diminished by the absence of any affordable housing'

Eleven market houses on a grey belt paddock at Billericay's edge. Grey belt, need and location limbs all passed. The scheme failed only the Golden Rules limb because it offered no affordable housing and no viability case. That made it inappropriate, and the committee unanimously held that an 11-home market benefit did not amount to VSC.

Full summary and sources

25/2053/FUL · Cheshire East · Council committee · 19 Aug 2026 · 68 homes

• GB7(1)(e) fail mostly PDL but substantial harm to openness (as found on 2021 appeal for 26 dwellings)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 3.3-year supply plus applicant's care-bed needs assessment (569-bed undersupply by 2030) not disputed by commissioner
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass lit footway on Sagars Road; shops/bus 0.7 km, health centre 600 m, Handforth station 750 m; Connectivity Tool 59-62% (below national average, 'comparably well connected for a rural edge location')
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) fail care home treated as major development involving provision of housing; no affordable housing offered → Golden Rules failed → inappropriate
• GB6(2) pass VSC found — grey belt status, enclosed PDL site, specialist housing need (significant weight), employment

A 68-bed care home on the enclosed, previously developed site of a burnt-out nursing home on the edge of Handforth, decided two days after the new Framework was published. Officers found the site grey belt, with unmet need met and a sustainable location. They also treated the care home as "major development involving the provision of housing", so it had to meet the Golden Rules. No affordable housing was offered, so it failed GB7(1)(g)(iv) and was inappropriate. Officers then found very special circumstances, and the committee approved. The update report added a Connectivity Tool score (59–62%) and said the 2026 NPPF made no material change.

Full summary and sources