London Borough of Barnet appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt inappropriateness in Barnet?
See how selected Barnet examples assessed building scale and replacement buildings in the Green Belt.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 13 of 487
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 12
- of 13 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: Barnet LPA (51.616031, −0.209984). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Barnet appeal findings
Barnet additions and replacement buildings in the Green Belt
A dismissed garage-conversion example was found not inappropriate, putting it at the issue's edge. Its extract gives no dismissal reason, and the outcome mix differs from the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
When earlier additions made development disproportionate
Previous additions increased the scale
With previous additions included, the extension was judged disproportionate to the original building and inappropriate in the Green Belt.
Inappropriate Green Belt development was the conclusion
The supplied extract gives no earlier analysis. It concludes only that the proposal was inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Helped or needed
When building changes were not inappropriate
Same use and no larger building
The replacement outbuilding had the same use and was not materially larger, so it was found not inappropriate and increased openness.
No disproportionate addition
The new outbuilding was found not to be disproportionate, with no harm to openness or Green Belt purposes.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal compare your proposal with the original building?
- Does it count earlier additions when judging the proposal’s size?
- If replacing a building, is it for the same purpose and not materially larger?
Some selected Barnet extracts state conclusions without the earlier reasoning. 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
2 examples
25 September 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as “demolition of existing garage and construction of a new outbuilding”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposal would be a replacement outbuilding that is used for the same purpose and would not be materially larger than what it is intended to replace. Therefore, the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In being so, it would not reduce the openness of the Green Belt (in actual fact it would increase it) and it would not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. This would be in accordance with the approach of the Framework. Accordingly, it would also be in accordance with Policy DM15 of Barnet’s Local Plan Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2012 (DMP) which states, amongst other things, that development proposals are required to comply with the Framework and that replacement buildings will not be permitted where they would have an adverse impact on the purposes of including land in Green Belt.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
28 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
New outbuilding with hard landscaping.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) and any relevant development plan policies; and • whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Totteridge Conservation Area (CA) and the setting of nearby designated and non-designated heritage assets.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would not, therefore, be a disproportionate addition to the original building and would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Consequently, it would not be harmful to openness or to any of the purposes of the Green Belt and therefore complies with Section 13 of the Framework, Policy G2 of the London Plan (2021) (LP), Policy ECC06 of the Barnet Local Plan (2025) (BLP) and the SPD which seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
5 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
two storey side extension, two storey front extension, front roof extension and alterations to existing two-storey front projection and bay window. Two storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: a) Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies, b) The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, c) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and d) Whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm, so as to amount to very special circumstances.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
In summary, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would not accord with DM15 of the DMP, Emerging Policy ECC05 of the LP or the SPD, which together seek to protect the Green Belt against inappropriate development.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
15 February 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
part single, part two storey side and rear extension at basement and ground floor level.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and the development plan; • the effect of the proposal on openness and the five purposes of the Green Belt, as set out in the Framework; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations that would amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, the proposal, when considered together with previous additions, would comprise a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building and would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would therefore conflict with [name], CS1 and CS7 of Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document – September 2012 (the CS), Policies DM01 and DM15 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document – September 2012 (the DMP), and Policy G2 of the London Plan – March 2021 (the LP). Together these policies seek, among other objectives, to reflect the provisions of the Framework and to resist development in the Green Belt other than in exceptional circumstances. The proposal would also conflict with the provisions of the Framework, as set out above.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
10 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the conversion and extension of a detached garage to create a dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appeal site is within the Green Belt and so the main issues are: • Whether or not the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; and • The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; and • The effect of the proposed development on protected trees; and • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. • If the proposed development 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 very special circumstances required to justify the proposed development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposal to extend and convert a detached garage would meet the exception in paragraph 154 c), the extension or alteration of a building, and would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Given this finding, I do not need to consider openness any further.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2