Chelmsford City Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in Chelmsford?
See the local inspector evidence on larger Green Belt proposals, openness and the limited allowed comparison.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 24 of 106
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 22
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 20
- of 24 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: Chelmsford LPA (51.725486, 0.48088). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Chelmsford City Council appeal findings
Chelmsford Green Belt: size, bulk and openness
The selected examples provide limited explanation of the allowed extension, so they cannot show every fact that may support a different result.
Counted against appeals
Where Chelmsford schemes harmed openness
Bulk and visibility reduced openness
The extended dwelling's extra volume and bulk had a significant spatial effect, and the side extension and porch were visible from the road.
A larger replacement dwelling
Increased height, massing and floorspace made the replacement dwelling materially larger than the bungalow.
The garage carried Green Belt harm
The Inspector concluded the detached garage was inappropriate and adversely affected openness. Green Belt harm carried substantial weight.
Helped or needed
Why the allowed extensions needed no special case
Not inappropriate development
The Inspector found the extensions were not inappropriate, so no openness assessment or very special circumstances case was required.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify increased height, bulk or floorspace?
- Does it say visible additions would reduce Green Belt openness?
- Does it say other considerations clearly outweigh Green Belt harm?
The allowed extension extract gives the conclusion, not the design reasoning behind it. 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
24 October 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a first floor extension over existing side projection and part single, part two-storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of development plan policy and the Framework; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if it is inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by reason 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 the development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Where a proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, it should not be regarded as being harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. As the proposed developments are not inappropriate development, as per Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework, an assessment on the effect of the proposals on the openness is not required. Likewise, very special circumstances do not need to be demonstrated in order for the proposals to be considered acceptable in Green Belt terms. Consequently, the proposal would accord with Policy DM11 of the CLP and the Framework, which seeks to protect the Green Belt from harm.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
11 February 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of existing extensions and a two-storey extension and a single front porch.
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
The proposed development would create an extended dwelling which would be larger than the existing building. Although it would largely sit within the footprint of the existing dwelling and its previous extensions, the proposal would nevertheless have a significant spatial impact on the openness of the Green Belt due to the increase in its volume and bulk. In addition, although the rear of the property is screened by landscaping, the side extension and porch would be highly visible from the road, thereby eroding the visual openness of the site. Therefore, there would be both an adverse spatial and visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt from the proposed extension, in that it would be reduced.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
14 December 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as extension of single-storey bedroom on side of existing building, plus a small open porch on the front of the bungalow. Exterior to match the existing building.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). • The effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and • If the proposal is inappropriate development, whether any 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 proposal.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, some harm to the openness of the Green Belt would occur. The Framework advises that openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt, the fundamental aim of which is to keep land permanently open. The loss of openness caused by the proposal would be at odds with this fundamental aim.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
11 March 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
proposed double garage - detached.
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; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if the development is inappropriate, 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 Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. LP policies DM6 and S11 are consistent with the Framework in these regards. I have concluded that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful. In addition, there would be adverse impacts on openness. 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 14 · Source page 3
18 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of an existing dwelling, and the construction of a new replacement detached C3 dwelling.
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 relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including the effect upon the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development on protected species, with particular regard to bats; and • if the proposal 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 required to justify the development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The existing dwelling is a two-bedroom hipped-roof bungalow of a simple form and style which is set back from the highway and has a relatively low prominence in the street scene. The replacement dwelling would be two-storeys with some chalet-style features, projecting gables and dormer windows. The Council estimates the new dwelling would be approximately 2.6m wider, 3.1m deeper, 2.35m taller and 172% larger in floor area than the existing dwelling. Due to the combined effect of its increased height, massing and floorspace, the new dwelling would be materially larger than the existing bungalow. The development would therefore fail to meet the requirements of paragraph 154(d) of the Framework or exception C of Policy DM6. This matter is not disputed by the appellant who accepts that the replacement dwelling would be materially larger than the existing and thus constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2