City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council appeal evidence
Refused for inappropriate Green Belt development in City of Bradford Metropolitan?
See selected findings on Green Belt harm and a garage proposal judged not disproportionate.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 22 of 184
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 19
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 22
- of 22 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: Bradford LPA (53.844717, −1.854735). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council appeal findings
Bradford Green Belt additions, openness and exceptions
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. Appeal 78375 is at the issue’s edge: its extract found no Green Belt inappropriateness.
Counted against appeals
Where Bradford Green Belt cases fell short
Openness was reduced
The sunroom and double garage were found to harm or reduce Green Belt openness, with substantial weight given to that harm.
No cited exception applied
The replacement garden room was found inappropriate after no cited exception applied, with substantial weight given to the resulting harm.
Other considerations fell short
For the sunroom, other considerations did not clearly outweigh the identified Green Belt harm.
Helped or needed
The Bradford garage was not disproportionate
Not disproportionate over the original building
The proposal was judged not to be a disproportionate addition over the original building, so it was not inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal explain why your proposal is not an exception?
- Does it identify lost Green Belt openness?
- Which other considerations are said to outweigh Green Belt harm?
Appeals 36954 and 67500 give conclusion extracts, not the Inspector’s full analysis. 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
14 September 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a detached garage and workshop.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all these factors into account, it is my judgement that the proposal would not be a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. Therefore, despite some conflict with the SPD, the proposal would not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would not conflict with the relevant provisions of the Framework.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
10 August 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey sunroom extension.
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 the development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have found that the development would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt and would be harmful to Green Belt openness. It therefore should not be approved except in very special circumstances. I must attach substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt and as such, the harm I have identified is clearly not outweighed by the other considerations. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.
Paragraph 15 · Source pages 2, 3
4 April 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
detached double garage.
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, including its effect on openness; ii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and iii) 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 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appeal scheme would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would reduce openness. I ascribe substantial weight to the harm which would be caused to the Green Belt and openness. Moderate weight is given to the harm which has been identified in respect of the effect on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore conflict with national and local planning policies.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4
22 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of an existing single storey flat roof section of building and re-build as 1.5 storeys with the first floor within the roof space. Raise the height of the existing pitched roof to create a single ridge line.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The increase in height and mass particularly at first floor level would alter the appearance of the building which would be more visible and prominent from the nearby dwellings resulting in a loss of openness to the Green Belt in visual terms. Whilst there would be some loss of openness resulting from the proposal, it would be of a moderate scale and localised in nature. It follows that the effect on the openness of the Green Belt would not reach the threshold of substantial harm under criterion 154g) and the proposal would therefore not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Consequently, the proposal would not conflict with the Green Belt objectives of the Framework.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
11 May 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
replace existing garden room with new timber clad garden room.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); 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 the development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
There are no other exceptions in paragraph 149 and 150 of the Framework which apply to the proposal. Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful and is contrary to the guidance in paragraphs 147 and 149 of the Framework. It would conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt set out in paragraph 138 of the Framework, which include safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The proposal would also conflict with Policy SC7 of the Local Plan for Bradford District: Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2017. The resultant harm should be given substantial weight in determining the appeal.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2