Single storey front extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 August 2026 by Lewis Condé BSc, MSc, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011692 Little Paddock, Lycrome Road, Chesham, Buckinghamshire HP5 3LD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Hutchinson against the decision of Buckinghamshire Council. • The application Ref is PL/26/02342/FA. • The development proposed is single storey front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. A new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. I have taken this into consideration as part of the appeal. However, as far as it relates to the appeal scheme, there have not been any fundamental changes to national policy that have necessitated re-consultation with the main parties. Main Issues 3. The main issues are: • Whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; and • Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. Reasons Whether inappropriate development 4. The appeal property is an existing dwelling located within the Green Belt, amongst a small cluster of other residential properties. The Framework identifies that the objective of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts, the essential features of which are their openness and permanence. Appeal Decision 6011692 2 5. The Framework further states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within one of the categories set out in Policy GB7. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 6. Policies GB2 and GB13 of the Chiltern District Local Plan (Adopted 1 September 1997 including alterations adopted 29 May 2001 Consolidated September 2007 & November 2011) (the ‘Local Plan’) broadly reflect this approach. However, they are not wholly consistent with current national policy, particularly in defining inappropriate development. The development plan remains the starting point, but I therefore give significant weight to the Framework as the more recent expression of national Green Belt policy. 7. The proposed single storey extension would consist of a garage to the front of the dwelling, connected to it by a covered canopy. A potential relevant exception is Framework Policy GB7(b), which permits the extension or alteration of an existing building, provided that, among other things, it would not result in a disproportionate increase in size compared with the original building. 8. Neither the Framework nor the relevant development plan policies define what constitutes a disproportionate increase in size. This is therefore a matter of planning judgement, having regard to the scale and form of the original building, previous additions and the appeal proposal. 9. Viewed in isolation, the proposed single-storey extension would not be excessive in height, scale or mass. However, the original dwelling has already been enlarged by side and rear extensions. Even adopting the appellant's lower calculation, the proposal would result in 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 and, when viewed alongside the resulting built form, weighs heavily in favour of finding the proposal disproportionate. Considering the scale of the cumulative enlargement and the resulting increase in built form, I conclude that the proposal would represent a disproportionate increase in the size of the original building. 10. The proposal has also not been demonstrated to comply with any other exception category to inappropriate development as outlined under Framework Policy GB7. 11. It would therefore constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would conflict with Local Plan Policies GB2 and GB13. Openness 12. Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt and has both spatial and visual dimensions. The proposal would introduce additional built form, volume and mass to the front of the dwelling. It would consequently diminish Green Belt openness. Whilst the loss of openness would be limited, the Framework requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Other Considerations 13. Due to the design of the proposal Local Plan Policy GB15 is not relevant to the appeal scheme. As such, contrary to the appellant’s assertions, this does not offer any significant support to the proposal. Appeal Decision 6011692 3 14. Aside from the harm to the Green Belt, the Council did not find that the proposal would result in any further harms including to the character and appearance of the dwelling or surrounding area. The evidence before me provides no reason to reach an alternative conclusion. However, an absence of further harm is a neutral consideration rather than a benefit weighing in favour of the appeal proposal. Green Belt Balance 15. The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would result in a limited loss of openness. The resulting harm attracts substantial weight. The considerations advanced in support of the proposal do not clearly outweigh that harm. Very special circumstances do not therefore exist to justify the proposed development. Conclusion 16. For the reasons outlined above, the appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that justify a decision other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Lewis Condé INSPECTOR