Amber Valley Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt development in Amber Valley?
See what the selected examples say about Green Belt exemptions, disproportionate additions and very special circumstances.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 5 of 20
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 4
- of 5 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Amber Valley LPA (53.029278, −1.466617). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Amber Valley Borough Council appeal findings
Green Belt exemptions in Amber Valley
The displayed allowed extract does not explain why the appeal was allowed, so it is not a full successful comparison.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt exemption failures
Disproportionate additions to a dwelling
Both conclusions say disproportionate increases or additions to the original dwelling were inappropriate Green Belt development.
Exemption not established
The extract concludes the proposal met neither the cited exemption nor the other outlined Green Belt exemptions.
Substantial Green Belt harm
The conclusion attached substantial weight to Green Belt harm, which clearly outweighed the other considerations.
Helped or needed
Rural-worker need was not an exemption
Need did not create an exemption
The allowed extract says a rural-worker need did not create an exemption. It was a consideration in assessing very special circumstances.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say your extension is disproportionate to the original dwelling?
- Which Green Belt exemption does the refusal say your proposal fails?
- What other considerations does the refusal weigh against Green Belt harm?
Appeal 16172 also raised heritage and living-condition issues; this review uses only its Green Belt extract. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
19 July 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
[name], [name] and [name].
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appeal site lies within an area of Green Belt. Therefore, the main issues are: • Whether the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • The effect on the openness of the Green Belt; • If the development is inappropriate, 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 it, and if so; • Whether a planning obligation is necessary in order for the proposal to accord with relevant planning policies relating to the Green Belt and provision of dwellings in the countryside.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appellant argues that the proposed dwelling would not be inappropriate, having demonstrated an essential need for a rural worker to live on the site. However, the use of a dwelling by a rural worker does not make it a building for the purposes of agriculture or forestry. Its primary purpose is still residential. As such, the proposed dwelling would not meet any of the exceptions under Paragraphs 145 or 146 of the Framework and would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Whether there is a need for the dwelling to house a rural worker is a consideration to be weighed up in determining whether very special circumstances exist to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
11 December 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
construction of triple garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Based on the above, the main issues in this appeal are as follows: - • whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies & the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • if the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the 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.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I must attach substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt. The harm arising by this clearly outweighs the other considerations. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist and the appeal should therefore be dismissed.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 3
16 January 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Proposed extension to existing dwelling ([name]/2022/0982)’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: (i) whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; (ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; 1 [name]/2022/0982 (iii) whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out above, the proposal would not accord with the exemption at paragraph 154 c) of the Framework. Consequently, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As the proposal would result in a disproportionate increase over the original dwelling, it would also be contrary to saved Policy ENV2 of the LP.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
9 June 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the partial demolition to the side and redevelopment of an earth-sheltered partially subterranean extension to the rear with associated parking and access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: (i) whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; (ii) the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; (iii) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage site, the setting of [site address] Cottage and [site address] House (which are Grade II Listed Buildings) and the setting of the group of non-designated heritage assets; (iv) the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [site address] Cottage; and (v) if the development is inappropriate, whether the 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.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all of the above into account, the proposal would not accord with the exemption outlined at paragraph 149c) as it would result in a disproportionate 1 [name]/E2734/D/19/3230295 and APP/E2734/D/21/3273831 addition to the dwelling. As such, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it would not accord with any of the exemptions outlined at paragraphs 149 or 150 of the Framework. It would also be contrary to Policy EN2 of the Amber Valley Borough Local Plan (2006) (AVBLP) which seeks to set out where permission would be granted for not inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
23 May 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
an extension to front of building and addition of first floor and rear suspended balcony.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: (i) whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; (ii) the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and (iii) if the development is inappropriate, whether the 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.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
To that end, the proposal would not accord with the exemption outlined at paragraph 149c). Consequently, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it would not accord with any of the exemptions outlined at paragraphs 149 or 150 of the Framework. It would also be contrary to Policy EN2 of the Amber Valley Borough Local Plan (2006) (AVBLP) which seeks to set out where permission would be granted for not inappropriate development in the Green Belt (albeit that this is not entirely consistent with the Framework).
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2