Bromsgrove District Council appeal evidence
Refused for inappropriate Green Belt development in Bromsgrove?
See how selected local examples treated limited openness, claimed benefits and conditions in Green Belt cases.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 32 of 55
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 25
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 32
- of 32 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: Bromsgrove LPA (52.361774, −2.01603). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Bromsgrove District Council appeal findings
Why Green Belt claims did not clear the harm
The selected examples omit the matched local set's other outcome, and the allowed extract does not give its reasons for permission.
Counted against appeals
Where Green Belt evidence fell short
Small losses of openness still counted
A detached garage's very limited, localised loss of openness was still treated as Green Belt harm carrying substantial weight.
Benefits carried limited weight
For a home extension, the conclusion says the scheme's benefits carried limited weight and did not clearly outweigh Green Belt harm.
The condition was not proven
A restriction on future permitted development was not shown to address the identified harm to openness.
Helped or needed
What the allowed Green Belt extract says
Only limited openness harm is stated
The extract describes only limited Green Belt openness harm, not the basis for granting permission.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify exactly how your proposal reduces Green Belt openness?
- What evidence shows a proposed condition would address that openness harm?
- Does the refusal explain why your benefits do not clearly outweigh Green Belt harm?
The allowed outbuilding also raised listed-building setting, but 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
3 February 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
outbuilding on land at [address] Farmhouse.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed outbuilding on the openness of the Green Belt; • whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the setting of [address] Farmhouse, a grade II listed building; and • if the proposal would 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 very special circumstances to justify it.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I have concluded that the appeal scheme would be inappropriate development that would, by definition, harm the Green Belt. I have also concluded that the proposal would cause only limited harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The Framework requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt.
Paragraph 26 · Source page 5
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
3 August 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey oak framed extensions to the rear following demolition of existing swimming pool outbuilding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i. whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised Framework and any relevant development plan policies, including its effect on openness; and ii. 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 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Whilst the appellant would be willing to accept a condition restricting further PD rights, it has not been demonstrated that other development could be constructed under PD that would result in greater harm to the Green Belt than the appeal proposal. In any event, if the appeal were allowed subject to such a condition, the removal of PD rights would not take effect until permission was implemented. There is no compelling evidence before me that preventing other extensions in future would address the harm to openness identified above. Therefore, such a condition would not be effective in mitigating the impact of the proposal and consequently, would not be reasonable or necessary.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
14 July 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
proposed single storey side extension and upper storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i. Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised Framework and any relevant development plan policies, including the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and ii. 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
The proposed development would cause harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and the reduction in the openness of the Green Belt, and I attach substantial weight to those harms. For the reasons set out above the benefits of the scheme carry limited weight. Therefore, the other considerations do not, on balance, clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.
Paragraph 18 · Source pages 3, 4
2 February 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as proposed new detached double garage.
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 Framework and development plan policy; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; 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
Therefore, the proposal would result in a loss of openness to the Green Belt. Whilst the effect would be very limited and localised, harm to the openness of the Green Belt would still occur. The Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and this harm is therefore a matter to which I attach substantial weight.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
10 December 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a replacement single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • If the development would be 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 other considerations put forward in this case carry modest weight, however they do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, to which I afford substantial weight. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt do not exist.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4