Bracknell Forest Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in Bracknell Forest?
See what the selected examples say about Green Belt inappropriateness and the facts to compare with your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 11 of 42
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 11
- of 11 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: Bracknell Forest LPA (51.40813, −0.739693). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Bracknell Forest Council appeal findings
Green Belt additions in selected Bracknell Forest appeals
The selected examples lean more towards allowed appeals than the matched local set. Some extracts give conclusions without their full reasoning.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt openness and limited benefits
Openness harm carried substantial weight
The lantern proposal was held to harm Green Belt openness, and the inspector gave that harm substantial weight.
Benefits received limited weight
The stated benefits had limited weight. The other considerations did not clearly outweigh Green Belt harm.
Inappropriate extension was harmful
The extract concludes that the two-storey flank extension was inappropriate and therefore harmful.
Helped or needed
Cumulative size and limited extensions
Cumulative size stayed proportionate
The proposal plus earlier extensions did not create disproportionate additions to the dwelling as first constructed.
A limited extension was not inappropriate
The games-room building was found to be a limited extension to an existing building, rather than inappropriate development.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a loss of Green Belt openness?
- Are earlier and proposed additions measured against the original dwelling?
- Does your evidence show benefits that clearly outweigh the stated harm?
Only Green Belt reasoning from the lantern example is used, because it also covered character and appearance. 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
3 examples
5 May 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolition of the existing conservatory and detached garage, and erection of a replacement single storey rear extension and detached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the appeal is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the development plan.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I find that the proposal would not comprise inappropriate development within the Green Belt as defined by the Framework and Policy GB1 of the Local Plan. The proposal would also accord with Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document ([name] 2008) which seeks, amongst other things to protect the green belt from inappropriate development.
Paragraph 10 · Source pages 2, 3
14 December 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey side extension to approved study extension and first floor balcony.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the development would be 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 cumulative increase in size of the dwelling by virtue of the proposals, together with the previous extensions, would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the dwelling as first constructed. For these reasons, the appeal proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined in the Framework. Accordingly, the proposals would not conflict with Policy CS9 of the CSDPD, Policy GB1 of the LP or aims of the Framework which seek to protect the Green Belt.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
13 March 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘to lay a new decking area and build and external outbuilding as a summertime games room’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on flooding; • if the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the resulting harm and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I find that the appeal proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would therefore accord with the provisions of the Framework together with saved Policy GB1 of the Local Plan in so far as the building would be a limited extension to an existing building.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
12 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the retention of black gloss iron effect traditional lanterns over pier caps to existing boundary wall treatment abutting public highway.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; • The effect of the proposed development on biodiversity; and • If the development is inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and harms its openness, to which I must attribute substantial weight against the development. Added to which is the harm relating to character and appearance. Balanced against that are the other considerations identified above. The appellant’s and the public benefits from the proposed development attract only limited weight, the lack of harm to biodiversity, human health, wellbeing and safety and amenity are neutral factors in the planning balance. I conclude that the other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and therefore there are no very special circumstances to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 24 · Source page 4
4 March 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two-storey flank extension with single storey conservatory to the rear of the flank extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area including trees within the site; • if the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the resulting harm and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This is by definition harmful and carries substantial weight. It would therefore conflict with paragraph 154 of the Framework together with Policy CS9 of the [name] and Saved Policy GB1 of the Local Plan.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2