Central Bedfordshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt additions in Central Bedfordshire?
Compare the local appeal examples with the details in 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
- 51 of 152
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 40
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 44
- of 51 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: Central Bedfordshire LPA (52.006707, −0.43598). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Central Bedfordshire Council appeal findings
When additions became disproportionate in Central Bedfordshire
The selected examples give conclusions, not the calculations behind them, so they do not show how each extension was measured.
Counted against appeals
Cumulative additions counted against proposals
Previous extensions counted too
A dismissed garage conversion and extension was judged disproportionate when considered cumulatively with previous development.
Inappropriateness brought further harm
A dismissed side extension was found inappropriate, harmful by definition, with a loss of openness.
Helped or needed
Allowed additions stayed proportionate
Earlier extensions stayed within scale
An allowed garden-room scheme was not disproportionate even after other extensions were considered cumulatively.
Replacement orangery remained proportionate
An allowed orangery replacing a conservatory was concluded not to be a disproportionate addition.
Rear extensions remained proportionate
An allowed rear-extension and garage-roof scheme was concluded not to create disproportionate additions.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal assess earlier extensions cumulatively?
- Which dimensions show the addition is disproportionate?
- Does the notice identify a separate loss of openness?
Example 65058 also covers openness, so it gives limited evidence on inappropriateness alone. 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
14 May 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
alterations to existing garage with conversion and extension of an existing workshop to create a garden room.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all of these considerations together as a whole, I find that what is proposed would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, even when considered cumulatively with the other extensions that have taken place. The proposal therefore falls within the exception listed in paragraph 154c) of the Framework, and it would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Consequently, the development would accord with Policy SP4 of the LP.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
1 May 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of oak framed orangery following removal of existing conservatory.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is 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.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I, therefore, find that the proposed development would not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. As such, it would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and therefore the scheme would not conflict with the Framework and LP Policy SP4.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
9 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
ground floor rear extension with flat and pitched roof, first floor rear extension with pitched roof and replacement of garage roof.
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 National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposed development on the health and longevity of trees.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposal would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The exception at Framework paragraph 154(c) would apply to the proposal and the development would not comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
9 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
conversion and extension of detached garage to an annexe.
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 National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; and • whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to amount to very special circumstances.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, considered cumulatively with previous development, the proposed extension and alterations would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Therefore, the proposal would not comply with the exception at paragraph 154(c) of the Framework and therefore would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
24 February 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
two storey side extension.
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 on the openness of the Green Belt and purposes of including land within it, and • If it is 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 necessary to justify it.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The development represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Under Framework paragraph 153 substantial weight is to be given to any harm. There would also be a loss of openness. Harmful inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4