Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt inappropriateness in Calderdale Metropolitan?
See which Green Belt harms counted against selected local appeals and what the allowed decision found.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 19 of 96
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 17
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 16
- of 19 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: Calderdale LPA (53.721195, −1.973456). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council appeal findings
Garage benefits did not outweigh Green Belt harm
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. Some dismissed extracts state conclusions only and also touch on area character or heritage.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt harm not outweighed
Other considerations carried limited weight
For a detached garage, Green Belt harm and other identified harm were not clearly outweighed because the other considerations had limited weight.
Parking need was not evidenced
For another detached garage, no substantive evidence showed that refusing it would prevent parking being accommodated otherwise.
Limited openness harm still counted
One conclusion found the proposal inappropriate in the Green Belt and harmful to openness, even though that harm was very limited.
Helped or needed
What the allowed Green Belt decision found
The scheme was not inappropriate
The allowed decision concluded that the scheme would not adversely affect Green Belt openness or its purposes because it was not inappropriate development.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt?
- Does it identify harm to openness alongside any other site harm?
- Is each claimed benefit supported by evidence rather than personal preference?
The displayed allowed extract gives a conclusion, not the proposal details or 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
1 example
14 October 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘[name].
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • 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; • the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; • 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 pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I find that the scheme before me would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would accord with the provisions of paragraph 149. c) of the Framework. With respect to openness and the purposes of the Green Belt, given my findings that it would not be inappropriate development, the development would, by definition, not have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes of including land within it. As such it would accord with Policy GNE1 of the Calderdale Unitary Development Plan (2006) (the UDP).
Paragraph 9 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
27 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a detached outbuilding comprised of a garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues of this appeal are; i) Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and development plan policies; ii) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and iii) 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 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In light of the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm, combined with the other identified harm to the character and appearance of the area, and the limited weight to be attached to other considerations, the harm would not be clearly outweighed. The very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Paragraph 24 · Source page 4
11 August 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
side and rear extension, addition of second storey to existing bungalow including raising roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in relation to 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 any relevant development plan policies; • The effect on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect on a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA); • The effect 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
The proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, resulting in a significant loss of openness and harm to a NDHA and the character and appearance of the area. The Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 23 · Source page 4
28 August 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a 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 National Planning Policy Framework (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 area; and, • If the development is inappropriate, 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 necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development would provide two covered off street parking spaces. Nonetheless, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest why, in the face of harm to the Green Belt, the refusal of planning permission in this case would prejudice the ability to accommodate parking on the site otherwise. Accordingly, the personal preference for a garage, which would be outlasted by the permanent nature of the proposed development, is not a strong justification for setting aside national and local policies with the legitimate aim of protecting the essential characteristics of the Green Belt in the public interest. I therefore attach this matter limited weight in favour of the proposal. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - Appeal Decision APP/A4710/D/24/3340825
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
11 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
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
I have found that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It would also cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt, albeit that harm would be very limited. Paragraph 153 of the Framework is clear that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, and that ‘very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3