Cherwell District Council appeal evidence
Refused as inappropriate development in the Cherwell Green Belt?
Learn which Green Belt facts to check before deciding your next step.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 6 of 75
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 6 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: Cherwell LPA (51.958919, −1.275851). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Cherwell District Council appeal findings
Cherwell Green Belt bulk, road views and comparisons
The selected examples do not cover every matched local decision, and the allowed extracts give conclusions without analysis.
Counted against appeals
Where Green Belt harm was found
Extra bulk reduced openness
A larger extended dwelling reduced openness despite replacing outbuildings and a conservatory.
Road views eroded openness
A two-storey side extension visible from the road was found to erode visual openness.
Other approvals lacked detail
Other Green Belt examples lacked the full details needed to show how planning judgement had been exercised.
Helped or needed
Allowed Green Belt conclusions
No Green Belt harm found
The Inspector concluded that the extension was not inappropriate development and caused no other harm.
No special case was needed
The Inspector concluded the proposal was not inappropriate, so very special circumstances did not need to be demonstrated.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify extra volume or bulk against the existing dwelling?
- Would a two-storey element be visible from the road?
- Do comparison schemes include full plans and their approval reasoning?
Both allowed extracts are conclusions only; appeal 69417 also raised heritage issues outside this page’s focus. 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
2 examples
13 May 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
1 metre extension to existing ground floor with new first floor extension over.
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 relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed extension would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. There would be no other harm arising and overall the proposal would comply with the development plan and with the Framework.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
13 May 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
removal of single storey rear extension and construction of part single storey and part two storey rear elevation plus associated external works; addition of 2 windows to front elevation.
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 and relevant development plan policies. • The effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt. • The effect on the [site address] Conservation Area and setting of the [name] listed church of [name] the Virgin and other listed buildings. • 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 2
Reasoning from the decision
I have found that the proposal would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt therefore very special circumstances do not need to be demonstrated. There would be no other Green Belt or any other harm arising. The proposal would accord with the development plan and the Framework.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
15 November 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
ground floor extension to the rear with a green roof and roof light to facilitate an open-plan kitchen/dining area.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) Whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt in terms of the current Framework and development plan policy. ii) If the proposal would be inappropriate development 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 necessary to justify it.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As the development would be within the confines of a residential plot, it would not conflict with any of the purposes of the Green Belt. Nonetheless, this, along with the acceptable design of the proposed scheme, lack of any harm to the living conditions of neighbours and the lack of objections to the proposal are neutral factors in the overall balance.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 3
1 December 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
remove rear conservatory and outbuilding. Remove concrete garage, timber shed and greenhouses. Construct new two storey side and rear extension, with lean-to single storey infill to rear.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i. whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; ii. the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; and, iii. 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 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 replace existing outbuildings and a conservatory, the appeal scheme would nevertheless have a spatial impact on openness of the Green Belt due to the increase in its volume and bulk. In addition, although the rear of the property is relatively well screened, the two-storey side extension would be 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 development, in that it would be reduced, albeit this would be limited given the scale of the proposal. This factor weighs somewhat against the proposal.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
11 January 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘double storey rear/side extension and associated internal alterations’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main parties agree that the appeal site is located within the Green Belt. As such, the main issues are: (i) Whether the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt; and, (ii) If the proposal would be 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 necessary to justify it.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Appellant has also drawn my attention to other examples within the Green Belt where the Local Planning Authority has determined that increases in excess of the 50% rule of thumb were acceptable. As aforesaid, the figure of 50% is an approximate one. I have not been provided with the full details of these other schemes, on other sites, pertaining to single storey extensions, two storey extensions and even a new dwelling across a number of years. The paucity of information means that it is unclear as to how planning judgement has been exercised in those cases so as to find those schemes acceptable. What is clear, however, is that the proposal in this case would result in unacceptable Green Belt harm. The absence of harm in these matters means that these should be regarded as neutral in the balance.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3