Brentwood Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt inappropriateness in Brentwood?
See the Green Belt concerns in the selected examples and the fallback supporting the allowed decision.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 16 of 76
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 12
- of 16 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: Brentwood LPA (51.638654, 0.310778). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Brentwood Borough Council appeal findings
When Brentwood proposals became inappropriate Green Belt development
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and the allowed example gives only a conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Why Brentwood proposals reduced Green Belt openness
Partial screening left close views
A fence and mature landscaping only partly screened the extension, leaving short-range views that reduced visual openness.
Large extensions reduced spatial openness
Despite limited public views, their substantial size and scale reduced spatial openness.
Other considerations did not outweigh harm
The conclusion found inappropriate development and a minor impact on openness, with other considerations not clearly outweighing Green Belt harm.
Helped or needed
What helped the Brentwood rear extension
Larger permitted-development fallback
The conclusion says a permitted-development fallback would result in a larger extension with greater Green Belt harm.
Harm was clearly outweighed
The conclusion says other considerations clearly outweighed the proposal's harm, so very special circumstances existed.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify both visual and spatial loss of openness?
- Would screening still leave short-range views of the extension?
- Is there a permitted-development fallback with greater Green Belt harm?
Appeal 71952 also considers host-property character, which this review does not assess. 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
28 September 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing conservatory and construction of single 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 any relevant development plan policies, (b) The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and (c) 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have found the proposal to amount to inappropriate development. However, the permitted development fallback would result in a larger extension with greater harm to the Green Belt. Accordingly, the harm resulting from the proposal is clearly outweighed by other considerations and very special circumstances therefore do exist. The proposal would thereby be compatible with BLP Policy MG02 and with the Framework. For these reasons I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
15 February 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two-storey side extension for a disabled individual and associated external works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and relevant development plan policies; • The effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and • Would the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Furthermore, although views of the extension would be partially screened from the public realm by a fence and mature landscaping, there would still be short range views of the proposal from [address], thereby eroding the visual openness of the site. This would not be mitigated by the large size of the plot. Therefore, there would be both spatial and visual impact to the openness of the Green Belt from the proposed extension, in that it would be reduced.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
13 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
proposed demolition of garage and construction of annexe and store.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Given the above, the main issues in this appeal 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, including any relevant effects 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appeal scheme would be inappropriate development that would, by definition, harm the Green Belt. There would also be significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the Framework requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt, whilst the other considerations identified are collectively of only limited weight in favour of the proposal. 1 Council Ref: 24/00978/HHA
Paragraph 21 · Source page 3
27 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolish garage, add single storey side extension to dwelling and construct new detached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; and 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 area; and, if there would be harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, whether the harm would be clearly outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt which would have a minor impact on the openness of the Green Belt. In accordance with the Framework, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. The proposed extension would also harm the character and appearance of the host property. Other considerations do not clearly outweigh the substantial weight that I give to the harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness and effect on openness that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The proposed extension would not accord with the development plan and there are no other material considerations to outweigh that finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
14 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
side and rear extensions.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and relevant development plan policies; • The effect on the openness of the Green Belt; • Whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Fryerning Conservation Area, and • Would the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Due to the distance of the appeal property from the road and the positioning of the proposed extensions to the side and rear of the dwelling, these would have limited visibility from the public realm and therefore limited visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt. However, the size and scale of the extensions would be substantial and would result in an adverse spatial impact on the openness of the Green Belt, in that it would be reduced. Whilst some aspects of the proposal would not impact the openness of the Green Belt, the overall proposal would impact both visual and spatial openness and would still result in moderate harm to the Green Belt.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3