City of York Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in City of York?
See Green Belt concerns in selected City of York appeals and what allowed examples concluded.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 12 of 74
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 12
- of 12 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: York LPA (53.958761, −1.061466). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
City of York Council appeal findings
Inappropriateness findings in City of York Green Belt appeals
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and some dismissed extracts give only conclusions.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt harm in dismissed York proposals
Roof enlargement reduced openness
The selected examples include a roof enlargement found inappropriate, with a moderate loss of Green Belt openness.
Extensions and garage added harm
The selected examples include extensions and a garage whose cumulative scale was concluded to harm openness and character and appearance.
Extension harmed Green Belt openness
The selected examples include an extension concluded to be inappropriate and harmful to Green Belt openness.
Helped or needed
Allowed York proposals held not inappropriate
Garage held not inappropriate
The selected examples include a detached garage concluded not to be inappropriate, so special circumstances were not considered.
Outbuilding did not need special circumstances
The selected examples include an outbuilding concluded not to be inappropriate. Its extract says no openness assessment or special circumstances were required.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice call the development inappropriate in the Green Belt?
- Does it identify loss of openness from scale or combined additions?
- Does it identify character-and-appearance harm alongside Green Belt harm?
Some selected dismissed City of York extracts state conclusions without the earlier 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
2 examples
29 July 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a detached single-storey garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would not represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt and as such, it would accord with the Framework. In reaching this view I have noted concerns raised regarding the effect of the development on the open character of the Green Belt in visual and spatial terms. However, as I have concluded the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt it is implicit that it would not harm either its openness or the purposes for including land within it. For the same reason it is not necessary for me to consider whether there are any special circumstances.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
2 December 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
Erection of outbuilding.
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 (the Framework) and the development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal upon 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
c) of the Framework. The proposal is therefore not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. [name] have found that the development is not inappropriate, it is not necessary to consider the effect of the proposal on Green Belt openness. Additionally, the demonstration of very special circumstances is not required to make the proposed development acceptable. For the same reasons, there would be compliance with Policy GB1 of the LP and the guidance contained within the SPD, set out above.
Paragraph 154 · Source pages 2, 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
8 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
raising of roof with hip to gable roof extensions to sides, front and rear; single storey front and rear extensions, 3no. rooflights to front and 2no. rooflights to rear.
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 development on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • 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 necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
[name] have not found harm in respect of the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and this, by definition, would be harmful. It would result in a moderate loss of openness, and this would harm the Green Belt. The Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, are clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 23 · Source page 5
21 May 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey side extension, first floor side extension and erection of detached garage following demolition of conservatory.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework and development plan policy; • The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt and • The effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the countryside setting to the appeal site.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have concluded that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, by definition, harmful. The cumulative scale of the extensions and garage in their context and the adverse impact it would have on the openness of the Green Belt adds to this harm. I have considered the other considerations set out above but, taken together, they would not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt from inappropriate development and the other harm identified in respect of character and appearance. As such the very special circumstances necessary to warrant the development do not exist and for the reasons given above, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4
8 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Single storey side extension and first floor side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the development 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 development 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm openness. The Framework establishes that 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 21 · Source page 4