Chorley Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt harm in Chorley?
See how selected examples treated Green Belt openness, countryside encroachment and claimed benefits.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 18 of 35
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 17
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 7
- of 18 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: Chorley LPA (53.661498, −2.647857). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Chorley Borough Council appeal findings
Green Belt openness and countryside encroachment
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, so they may not reflect every fact pattern.
Counted against appeals
Dismissed: Green Belt openness and encroachment
Permissions did not outweigh harm
Existing permissions and other considerations did not clearly outweigh Green Belt and other harm.
Earlier extensions reduced openness
The proposed extension, combined with earlier extensions, was found to cause harmful loss of Green Belt openness.
Open land increased encroachment
One scheme was treated as substantial countryside encroachment. Another caused permanent spatial and visual openness harm despite a modest localised overall loss.
Helped or needed
Allowed: Green Belt purposes not undermined
Modest encroachment did not undermine purposes
The Inspector concluded that modest countryside encroachment would not fundamentally undermine the remaining Green Belt’s purposes across the plan area.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify spatial or visual loss of Green Belt openness?
- Does it explain how earlier extensions change the proposal’s effect?
- Which claimed benefits does it say do not outweigh harm?
The allowed example gives a conclusion only, not the reasoning that led to 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
13 May 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of up to 9 dwellings and associated development.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, with particular reference to: 1 New Dawn Homes Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Tewksbury Borough Council [2016] EWHC 3314 (Admin) 2 3376051 3 3376087 • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; and • whether the proposed development makes efficient and effective use of land.
Paragraph 12 · Source pages 2, 3
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, in my judgement, whilst there would be modest encroachment into the countryside, the development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan.
Paragraph 24 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
29 September 2021 · 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 Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • If the proposal is inappropriate development, whether 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 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Against this, the other considerations that have been advanced and cited in support of the proposal, particularly the extant permissions, are not sufficient, either individually or cumulatively, to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the other harm I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
19 October 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a rear first floor extension over ground floor extension to form an additional bedroom and bathroom.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The mains issues of 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, 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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In summary, the proposed extension, combined with previous extensions, would be inappropriate development in the terms set out by the Framework and would result in a harmful loss of openness to the Green Belt. The Framework requires that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. The other considerations advanced in support of the appeal carry no more than limited weight and thus do not clearly outweigh the harm I have identified.
Paragraph 24 · Source page 4
29 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Planning Permission in Principle (PIP) for the erection of up to 9 no. dwellings.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development with regard to: - • whether the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone]. • 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 development.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
In utilising grey belt land, criterion (a) of paragraph 155 requires that the development would not undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. The appeal site is described as having an area of about 0.76 hectares and so developing this land would represent a substantial encroachment into the countryside. This is a large area of open land which forms part of a substantial area of open countryside extending to the south which, if developed, would conflict with one of the principles of Green Belt. Taking the principles of Green Belt together therefore, the size of the land and its location would undermine the Green Belt in this part of the Borough. Whether it would undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt throughout the Borough however is unlikely as the Council has indicated that of the 14550 hectares of land designated as Green Belt, encroachment of less than 0.8 hectares would not be so great as to undermine the ability of the remaining Green Belt in the Borough to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
18 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of up to nine dwellings.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having reference to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, with regard to; • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and development plan policies; • The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; • Whether the proposal amounts to an efficient use of land; and 1 New Dawn Homes Ltd v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 3314 (Admin). 2 Examination of the Central Lancashire Local Plan 2023-2041 [name] – [name] and Related Matters Letter dated 4 March 2026 as contained at [name] of the appellant’s Rebuttal of the Council’s Appeal Statement. 3 Woodcock Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 1173 (Admin). • 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 9 · Source pages 2, 3
Reasoning from the decision
The urbanisation and visual encroachment of built development would therefore be apparent. Whilst the reduction in openness to the Green Belt as a whole would be modest and localised, permanent harm to the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt would nonetheless occur. Consequently, I find conflict with paragraph 142 of the Framework.
Paragraph 26 · Source page 5