Bath and North East Somerset Council appeal evidence
Refused for Green Belt inappropriateness in Bath and North East Somerset?
See how selected inspectors assessed inappropriate development, openness 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
- 15 of 65
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 10
- of 15 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: Bath and North East Somerset LPA (51.355967, −2.475201). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Bath and North East Somerset Council appeal findings
Bath and North East Somerset Green Belt harm findings
The selected examples include allowed and dismissed outcomes but have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. One allowed example uses grey belt land, at this issue's edge.
Counted against appeals
Bath and North East Somerset dismissed Green Belt appeals
Bigger footprint reduced openness
A front addition increased the dwelling's footprint, and the loss of openness was visible from the lane despite being localised.
Taller replacement harmed openness
A taller replacement caused moderate visual and spatial harm to openness. Loss of the agricultural building was also harmful.
Other considerations did not outweigh harm
For a roof enlargement and balcony, the inspector concluded other considerations did not clearly outweigh Green Belt harm, so very special circumstances were absent.
Helped or needed
Bath and North East Somerset allowed Green Belt appeals
Wall and gates were not inappropriate
The inspector found the wall and gates were not inappropriate development and said very special circumstances were not involved.
Green Belt purposes not fundamentally undermined
The dwelling was found not to significantly encroach into the countryside or fundamentally undermine the remaining Green Belt's purposes.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify extra footprint, height or a loss of openness?
- Does it explain why your proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt?
- Which other considerations are said to clearly outweigh Green Belt harm?
The grey belt example may not compare closely with proposals on other Green Belt land. 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
2 February 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as, “retention of front boundary wall and gates”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the wall and gates do not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. No conflict arises with Policy GB3 of the Local Plan or the Framework in this respect, the relevant parts of which have been summarised above. It follows that very special circumstances, referred to at paragraph 153 of the Framework, are not involved in this case.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
11 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of 1 no. self-build residential dwelling (Use Class C3) and associated infrastructure.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; and • Whether the location is suitable for residential development having regard to the spatial strategy in the development plan. 1 24/00825/ADCOU
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Due to the site’s characteristics, it’s location and the distance from the nearest neighbouring villages, the proposed development would not significantly encroach into the countryside. I find it would, therefore, not fundamentally affect the ability of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan, from serving all five of the Green Belt purposes. Therefore, as grey belt land would be utilised, and the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt would not be fundamentally undermined, the proposal would satisfy paragraph 155 a) of the Framework.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
31 January 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Ridge to be raised to allow for new room in roof, including new dormer extension. Side balcony formed to master bedroom.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appeal site is located within an area of Green Belt. Accordingly, the main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • 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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would reduce openness in this location. The Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Even when taken together, I conclude that the other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm in this case. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The proposal is therefore contrary to CS Policy CP8, PP Policy GB3 and guidance contained in the Framework relating to Green Belts.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
12 July 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Addition of bay window to front with balcony above. Build first floor extension over existing single storey aspects to rear. Provide a makeover to façade of the building.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and development plan policy; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • whether the 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 page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The bulk of the proposed addition would be to the front of the dwelling and would include a large opening at the first floor. It would not significantly alter its form when viewed from the lane however it would extend the mass and footprint of the dwelling at this aspect. The resultant visual and spatial change on the openness of the Green Belt in this area would be evident from the lane immediately to the front of the dwelling and therefore the effect would be limited and localised. It would however have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development, in that the footprint of the dwelling would be slightly increased and there would be a loss of openness at this aspect of the property.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
30 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
change of use of the existing building to storage/ workshop space, and to replace the existing building (approx. 67.50m2), with horizontal corrugated metal sheet elevations. The building will be of the same size, but increasing in height by 2.85m.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework); • the effect of the proposed development upon the openness of the Green Belt; • whether the development would be acceptable with regard to farm diversification and the loss of a building in agricultural use; and • if the proposal is found to be 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 required to justify the development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined in the Framework. There would be moderate harm to openness, in both spatial and visual terms. There would also be harm associated with the loss of an agricultural building contrary to the objective of ensuring appropriate farm diversification. The Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt including harm to its openness. Very special circumstances will not exist unless that harm, and any other harm resulting from the development, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4