Coventry City Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt inappropriateness in Coventry?
See the Green Belt effects described locally, the neutral points, and what to compare with your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 9 of 155
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 7
- of 9 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: Coventry LPA (52.416887, −1.519744). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Coventry City Council appeal findings
Green Belt openness in the overall balance
The matched local set has no allowed appeal. The selected examples do not quote the decisive Green Belt reasoning behind the dismissals.
Counted against appeals
Favourable facts were neutral
Design and neighbour impacts were neutral
In 3155, acceptable design, no neighbour harm and no countryside encroachment were neutral in the overall balance.
No dismissal reason is quoted
76089, 49711 and 89666 describe limited Green Belt effects, but their selected passages do not state why the appeals were dismissed.
No allowed example matched
No allowed Coventry comparator
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
No positive factor is quoted
Across 76089, 49711, 3155 and 89666, the selected dismissed passages show limited effects or neutral points, not a factor given positive weight.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify Green Belt harm beyond visual openness?
- Do your plans show screening, nearby buildings and public views?
- Does the refusal treat design or neighbour effects as neutral?
The selected split-decision passage only addresses a front dormer and is conclusion-only. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Read the reasoning in matched appeal decisions
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.
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
10 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of the existing porch and rear dormers, to be replaced with an improved rear dormer and improved full height front entrance gable.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues relevant to this appeal are: • 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 • the effect of the proposal upon the openness of the Green Belt • the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the 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 required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed replacement dormer windows would be modest additions to the rear roof slope. These would be situated within the roof slope and from a spatial perspective they would not result in notable additional built form in the Green Belt. As a result, they would not harm the spatial aspect of the openness of the Green Belt. Given the location of the dormer windows, they would be mostly screened by the house itself and given that these would be within the existing roof slope, they would not substantially increase the apparent bulk of the dwelling from a visual perspective.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
18 April 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing garage and outbuilding and erection of rear single storey extension.
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 development is inappropriate, 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 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The rear extension would not be highly visible from the street scene owing to the existing built form. Whilst there would be some views possible from the countryside to the rear, the proposal would be seen in the context and backdrop of surrounding properties which are of a similar scale to that proposed. The removal of the garage would also open up some limited views through from the street scene to the fields at the rear. Consequently, when considering the development as a whole, the effect of the proposed development on the Green Belt’s visual openness would be very limited.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
14 September 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extensions, open porch, first floor side extension and loft conversion within roof void.
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 Framework, 2021 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As the development would be within the confines of a residential plot, it would not conflict with one of the purposes of the Green Belt which is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Nonetheless, this and the lack of any harm to the living conditions of neighbours and the acceptable design of the proposed scheme are neutral factors in the overall balance.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 3
2 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a double garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and, • if the proposal is found to be 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 required to justify the development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In this context, there would be limited views of the proposed garage from neighbouring properties, and it would not be prominent from public views on [address]. The proposed garage would be located close to existing built development and would not extend further into the Green Belt than other buildings in the vicinity. The proposal would therefore have a limited effect on visual openness.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
30 June 2026 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
Alterations to front-facing roof, ground floor [name] and Outbuilding (retrospective).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. • The effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt. • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of Newlands, with particular regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight. • 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 pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
However, as set out above, the Council accepts the front dormer would be acceptable, and I have no substantive evidence to suggest this element would harm the Green Belt nor result in any other harm. In the absence of conflict with the development plan, I conclude the appeal should be allowed insofar as it relates to the front dormer only.
Paragraph 27 · Source page 6