Green Belt replacement house wins despite 199% floorspace increase

The Sycamore Farm scheme at Over Peover would have around 199% more floorspace, a footprint around 274% larger, a ridge about 1.91 metres higher and eaves about 2.12 metres higher. Those figures put it squarely in conflict with Cheshire East’s local replacement-building policy. They did not, however, make the development inappropriate in the Green Belt.

Green Belt replacement house clears the new GB7 route

Appeal 6008176 concerned Sycamore Farm, Well Bank Lane, Over Peover, where Mr and Mrs Dawson sought permission to demolish the existing buildings and erect a replacement house with a comprehensive landscape scheme. Cheshire East Council refused application 25/2744/FUL.

Inspector C Evans visited the site on 10th June 2026 and allowed the appeal on 30th September 2026. The timing mattered because the revised National Planning Policy Framework had been published on 17th August, after the council’s decision. Both parties were given an opportunity to comment on the new policy.

This was not the first attempt. An earlier appeal, APP/R0660/W/24/3348007, was dismissed on 11th February 2025. The current Inspector recorded that the replacement house had since been reduced in size and height and its design altered, so the different outcome cannot be attributed to the August 2026 NPPF change alone.

The revised proposal also had local support. Peover Superior and Snelson Parish Council supported the application, recording that the earlier concern about overall height had been recognised and that the new scheme had a reduced ridge height.

The appeal site contained a vacant boarded-up house, a greenhouse, a blockwork and metal-sheeted barn and several timber buildings, including an old stable block. The Inspector treated the group as previously developed land, a point on which the parties appeared to agree.

That opened the door to Policy GB7(1)(e). Under the August 2026 NPPF, redevelopment of previously developed land in the Green Belt is not inappropriate where it would not cause substantial harm to openness.

The house would plainly have a greater visual presence. The council calculated a ridge height of around 7.77 metres compared with 5.86 metres for the existing house, and a footprint of 441 sq m compared with 118 sq m. The appellants did not dispute those measurements.

But the Inspector also considered what would disappear. The outbuildings had an existing effect on spatial openness, particularly the larger barn. Removing them would be beneficial, while the new house would sit further from the public right of way and could be softened by landscaping.

The overall conclusion was a “moderate loss of visual openness” and “moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt”. That distinction was decisive. GB7(1)(e) does not require zero harm to openness. The threshold is substantial harm, and the Inspector found that threshold was not reached.

The Green Belt replacement house was therefore not inappropriate development. It did not need to demonstrate very special circumstances simply to overcome Green Belt inappropriateness. Our wider Green Belt guide explains how the August 2026 GB6 and GB7 structure now works.

Why Cheshire East’s replacement policy still failed

Passing GB7(1)(e) did not mean the Green Belt replacement house complied with the development plan.

Cheshire East SADPD Policy RUR13 says replacement buildings outside settlement boundaries should not be materially larger than the buildings they replace. It directs decision-makers to consider height, bulk, form, siting, design, floorspace and footprint.

On those measures, the conflict was stark. The council’s figures showed around 199% more floorspace and a 274% larger footprint. The maximum ridge would be approximately 1.91 metres higher and the maximum eaves height approximately 2.12 metres higher.

The Inspector therefore found the Green Belt replacement house “considerably larger” than the existing house and confirmed conflict with RUR13.

That did not end the appeal. The statutory starting point remains the development plan, but national planning policy is a material consideration. Here, the Inspector noted that RUR13 did not reflect the revised wording of GB7(1)(e), under which this redevelopment was not inappropriate Green Belt development.

There was also no identified harm to the character or appearance of the area arising from the increased scale. In those circumstances, the Inspector gave the RUR13 conflict “only very limited weight”.

A permitted-development fallback changed the comparison

The fallback was the other major part of the Green Belt replacement house decision.

The appellants had demonstrated a lawful scheme for extensions and alterations to the existing house using permitted development rights, together with a detached garage and leisure annex. A lawful development certificate had been provided.

Both parties accepted that the alternative had a realistic prospect of implementation. That put it firmly into the territory explained in our guide to a fallback position in planning: the question was not whether it was the owners’ preferred scheme, but whether it was genuinely available and more than theoretical.

The numerical comparison favoured the Green Belt replacement house. Against the fallback, the appeal scheme would have:

• 24% less volume
• 11% less floorspace
• 34% less footprint

The fallback would also retain the existing structures and add further mass. Although more of it would be single storey, the combination would cover a larger part of the site and have a greater effect on visual openness, particularly from the public right of way.

For the Green Belt replacement house, the Inspector gave that fallback moderate weight.

The self-build BNG exemption was saved by the application date

The Green Belt replacement house decision also needs careful reading on biodiversity net gain.

The Inspector recorded a unilateral undertaking securing the proposed dwelling as self-build. Paragraph 23 says the undertaking was necessary because it had not been demonstrated that statutory BNG could otherwise be delivered, and that securing the dwelling as self-build meant it was exempt.

That statement needs to be read through the transitional rules. The former self-build exemption remains available to qualifying applications made before the change, but it is not the general law for new applications made today.

The application was submitted on 18th July 2025, more than a year before the BNG changes which came into force on 6th August 2026. SI 2026/790 removed the specific self-build and custom-build exemption for new planning applications made from that date. Regulation 4(2), however, preserves the former exemption for qualifying planning applications made before 6th August 2026.

The Inspector treated the unilateral undertaking as sufficient to secure the saved self-build exemption in this appeal. A new self-build application made after 6th August 2026 does not obtain an automatic BNG exemption merely because it is self-build, although another exemption may still apply on its own facts.

The Inspector also gave moderate weight to the self-build commitment itself, noting national policy support for that form of housing while observing that no evidence had been provided about local demand or delivery.

Conditions stop the site becoming two development schemes

The Green Belt replacement house would occupy a different part of the site from the existing dwelling. In principle, that meant both could temporarily coexist.

The Inspector dealt with that through conditions. Before the Green Belt replacement house can be occupied, all existing buildings must be demolished and the land restored in accordance with an approved scheme. Landscaping is also required to return the former residential area to an appropriate treatment and help protect openness.

The permission also removes householder permitted development rights under Classes A to E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO. That covers the principal rights for enlargement, roof alterations, porches and buildings within the curtilage. A separate condition prevents new fences, gates, walls and other means of enclosure unless they are approved.

Why the Over Peover Green Belt replacement house decision matters

The useful lesson from Sycamore Farm is not that size has stopped mattering in the Green Belt. It is that the August 2026 NPPF now provides distinct policy routes which need to be tested separately.

A replacement house that is materially larger can fail the replacement-building route and still qualify under the previously developed land route if the site is PDL and the redevelopment would not cause substantial harm to openness. Local replacement policies can still create development-plan conflict, but the weight of that conflict may depend on how closely they now align with national policy and whether the feared planning harm actually arises.

Inspector Evans ultimately found that the proposal conflicted with the development plan but that material considerations indicated a decision should be made otherwise. The benefits “substantially outweigh” the adverse effects, and the appeal was allowed.

For anyone promoting a Green Belt replacement house, the practical questions are therefore separate:

• Does the proposal satisfy the replacement-building route in GB7(1)(b)
• If not, is there another GB7 route, such as previously developed land under GB7(1)(e)
• What actual harm to openness would arise after demolition of all existing buildings
• Does a lawful fallback have a realistic prospect of implementation and how does it compare numerically
• Which local countryside or replacement policies still apply, and how much weight should they carry under the current NPPF
• Which BNG regime applies to the date the application was made

The Green Belt replacement house decision is strongly fact-specific. It is not a general licence for oversized replacement homes in the Green Belt, but it is a clear example of the revised GB7 wording changing the route through which a large replacement dwelling can be assessed.

Appeal 6008176 was decided on 30th September 2026 by Inspector C Evans following the written representations procedure.