Appeal 6002213

The appeal is dismissed.

A consultation draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 16 December 2025 but given that this is at the consultation stage I do not consider it necessary to invite comments from the parties at this time. Any reference to the Framework is based on the current version, dated December 2024.

The main issues are: - • whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal on the openness and the purposes of the Green Belt; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

The appeal site includes the house, [site address] and land around it. The house originally would have been part of an agricultural farm including other buildings to the north which have now been altered and converted to residential properties ([name], [name] & Edgefields). [address] has a detached garage with a car port. The land around the house includes external amenity space close to the house and open land within the application site. I have no evidence clarifying the curtilage of the domestic property. Nevertheless, it is a large property with substantial space around it to the east and south with [site address] running along its western boundary and the other residential dwellings/former agricultural buildings to the north. The site is within the Green Belt.

The Framework explains that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It makes it clear that development is considered inappropriate unless it satisfies one of the exceptions cited in paragraphs 154 and 155.

Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework allows the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The reason for refusal states that the proposal is inappropriate development in that together with previous extensions it would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. This would conflict with the Framework and Local Plan1 Policy PG 3 which generally reflects the Framework in this regard.

SADPD2 Policy RUR 11 sets out criteria for considering whether a proposal represents inappropriate development. Amongst other things, it introduces a threshold of 30%, above which, and subject to other considerations, development is assessed as to whether it would be disproportionate. There is no evidence to dispute that this threshold would not be exceeded although the appellant is silent on the exception cited in paragraph 154 c) of the Framework. I agree with the Council, that the proposal would conflict with paragraph 154 c) and it would be a disproportionate addition in conflict with the Framework, Local Plan Policy PG 3 and SADPD Policy RUR 11.

The appellant disputes conflict with Policy RUR 11 on the basis that it allows additional floorspace where there is no significant alteration to the buildings envelope or external appearance. The policy cites basement extensions as an example as to where this may be applicable. The proposal would be a large single storey extension and have a far greater visual impact than a basement extension. The other exceptions to the 30% threshold include development within a village infill boundary; the provision of basic facilities or sanitation; and a small scale domestic outbuilding. None of these are applicable either. Therefore, I do not accept that the proposal would comply with SADPD Policy RUR 11.

The appellant argues that paragraph 154 g) of the Framework is relevant. This allows limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings) which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Whilst there is no particular reason why paragraph 154 g) may be considered as opposed to paragraph 154 c), I consider that paragraph 154 g) is wrongly applied in this case for the following reasons.

As stated above, the appeal site includes the dwelling, amenity space around it and open land. Whilst the dwelling may be considered PDL, I have no evidence to substantiate that the whole of the site is PDL. Notwithstanding this, the appellant 1 Cheshire East Council – Cheshire East Local Plan Local Plan Strategy 2010 – 2030 July 2017. 2 Cheshire East Council – Cheshire East Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Policies Document Adopted December 2022 (SADPD). argues that the proposal would amount to infilling. This is because the extension would ‘infill’ the space between the house and the garage.

The garage lies at right angles to the house and the resulting extension would create an L shaped building. I do not agree that this is what is meant by limited infilling. The appellant refers to an example where an Inspector accepted the argument of infilling for a space between a pair of semi-detached houses3. These fronted a road and filling in this space would be a very different arrangement than the proposal subject to this appeal. That case and the one before me are not comparable. Consequently, I do not consider that paragraph 154 g) provides an exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Furthermore, paragraph 154 g) requires that no substantial harm is caused to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposed extension would be at the rear of the house and although it would be seen in the context of the house itself, the garage/car port and the adjacent buildings to the north, it would represent a substantial addition to the house in terms of the proposed size of the new build. The land to the east and south is open. This relatively flat landscape means that the existing dwelling is prominent in the landscape. It is already a very large property and the proposal would enlarge it further.

I am not going to qualify the level of openness and there is no requirement in the Framework for me to do so. Notwithstanding the design of the extension in terms of its flat roof, use of glass and the green planted wall, the proposal would enlarge the built form into an area that is currently free from buildings. It would therefore impact both spatially and visually on the openness of the Green Belt. I find that due to the size of the extension, this would be harmful.

Paragraph 143 of the Framework sets out the purposes of Green Belt. These include, a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b) to prevent towns from merging into one another; c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The proposal would result in a larger dwelling and by reducing the space around it, including the space between the house and the garage, it would visually detract from the openness of the countryside. This would fail to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. I accept that encroachment would be limited in this case but this does not lessen the harm I have already identified.

The proposal would therefore amount to inappropriate development taking into consideration both exceptions cited in paragraphs 154 c) and 154 g) of the Framework. Harm to the Green Belt caused by inappropriate development carries substantial weight.

The proposal would include some internal alterations to utilise an existing games/study room, a living room and a dining room to create a bedroom, living room and a study. A cloakroom/WC and laundry would remain unaltered, whilst a separate utility room and open plan kitchen, family and dining area would remain as an open plan kitchen and dining area. The proposed extension would enlarge 3 Planning Appeal Ref: APP/M0655/W/25/3369894. this open plan area to create a family area and a separate prep kitchen and boot room.

The appellant has explained the family circumstances as to why the proposed extension is required. It would provide ground floor accessible, self-contained accommodation for the family member who has a medical condition that will cause increasing mobility issues (Parkinsons). The alterations and extensions would allow the family member to live at [address] and receive any care that is required whilst retaining privacy. The appellant states this would avoid a need to move the relative into the care system which would benefit the health and welfare of the person themselves and the family as a whole. The five bedrooms on the first floor would be unaffected.

The planning application is accompanied by a statement from the appellant stating his accommodation at a different address in [site address] . It states the need for his father to reside with him but the appeal site is not suitable. This is contradictory in that it is unclear why the appellant now lives at [address].

Nevertheless, whilst the reason for the extra space is understandable, this is a large house and I am not convinced that an alternative solution could not be possible. Personal circumstances rarely carry sufficient weight to overcome the substantial harm caused by inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In this case, I am not convinced that the weight that can be attributed to the circumstance presented here carry more than moderate weight.

I have also considered the proposal in terms of Local Plan Policy MP 1 which sets out the Council’s positive approach to sustainable development. The proposal would have economic benefits during the construction phase of the proposal. It would also have economic and social benefits as a result of providing additional accommodation to meet the medical needs of a family member. However, weight afforded by inappropriate development in the Green Belt is substantial and significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the proposal as I have set out above. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with Policy MP 1 in addition to Local Plan Policy PG 3 and SADPD Policy RUR 11 and the Framework.

The Framework makes it clear that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm, by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other circumstances.

I have found that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the very special circumstances required to clearly outweigh the harm caused by inappropriateness, and any other harm, including harm to the openness of the Green Belt, do not exist. The scheme would conflict with the Framework and with Local Plan Policies PG 3 and MP 1 and SADPD Policy RUR 11.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Consequently, for the above reasons the appeal should be dismissed.