Cheshire West and Chester Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in Cheshire West and Chester?
Learn what the selected local examples say about Green Belt inappropriateness, openness and the allowed example.
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 158
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 26
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 31
- 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: Cheshire West and Chester LPA (53.200213, −2.735805). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Cheshire West and Chester Council appeal findings
Green Belt inappropriateness in Cheshire West and Chester
The selected examples include both outcomes, but the allowed extract gives a conclusion without its supporting analysis.
Counted against appeals
Cheshire West and Chester Green Belt objections
Replacement garage reduced openness
The Inspector said the replacement garage would make the Green Belt less open than the existing development.
Openness harm needed clear outweighing
The proposed extensions were found inappropriate and harmful to openness. Other considerations had to clearly outweigh that harm.
Disproportionate addition outside exception
The Inspector concluded the proposed extension was a disproportionate addition over and above the original building, outside the exception.
Helped or needed
Allowed side extension in Cheshire West and Chester
Conclusion without supporting analysis
The Inspector concluded the single-storey side extension was not inappropriate development. The selected extract does not say why.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal call the addition disproportionate to the original building?
- Does it say the proposal would make the Green Belt less open?
- Does it explain why a Green Belt exception does not apply?
The allowed extract provides no supporting analysis for its conclusion that the side extension was not inappropriate. 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
6 November 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development is inappropriate in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As such it would not conflict with LP1 Policy STRAT9, which indicates that within the Green Belt restrictions will apply to development in line with the Framework, or with guidance within the [name] and Domestic Outbuildings Supplementary Planning Document (2021).
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
11 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a replacement detached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the 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 any relevant development plan policies; ii. The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and iii. Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, in addition to the harm arising from the fact that the development would be inappropriate, it would result in this part of the Green Belt being less open than it is at present spatially. As such whilst acknowledging that this is a proposal for a replacement garage, it would have a greater impact on openness of the Green Belt than the existing development. Consequently, I conclude that the development would not preserve Green Belt openness, albeit in the context of the scale of the proposal, this is limited.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
17 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a double storey front extension, single storey rear and side extension and raising of central roof.
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 National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • Its effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area; • The effect of the proposal on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by reference to privacy; and • if the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and it would harm its openness. Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The Framework dictates that harm to the Green Belt should be given substantial weight. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposal is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 4
30 May 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
construction of two-storey front and first floor side extensions, single-storey rear extension with first floor balcony area, render to rear and side elevations and portico to main entrance.
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 Framework and any relevant development plan policies; ii) The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and iii) 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 necessary to justify it.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would not meet the exception in Framework paragraph 154c). It would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt in conflict with LP policy STRAT9 and the policies in the Framework that protect the Green Belt.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
20 September 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of first floor rear extension and front porch.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appeal site is within the Green Belt. Accordingly, I consider that the main issues are: • Whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development within 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; and • If the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether or not 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 the proposal.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore consider that the proposed extension would represent a disproportionate addition over and above the original building. Consequently, it would not fall within the exception described in Paragraph 149(c) of the Framework, and would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. By definition, it would be harmful to the Green Belt, and this is a matter to which I afford substantial weight in the planning balance as required by Paragraph 148 of the Framework. The development would also conflict with Policy STRAT9 of the Part One Plan, and Policy DM21 of the Part Two Plan, which seek to protect the Green Belt within [name] and Chester in line with national policy.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 5