London Borough of Croydon appeal evidence
Refused for inappropriate Green Belt development in Croydon?
See how cited Croydon decisions treated Green Belt harm, replacement size and very special circumstances.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 6 of 260
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 6
- of 6 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: Croydon LPA (51.355336, −0.087133). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Croydon appeal findings
Green Belt harm and very special circumstances
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. Several dismissed extracts are conclusion-only or address another issue.
Counted against appeals
Other considerations fell short
No very special circumstances
The conclusions say other considerations did not clearly outweigh substantial Green Belt harm and other harm.
Helped or needed
Comparable replacement garage
Not materially larger replacement
The allowed proposal was not materially larger than the building it would replace and stayed in the same use class.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say the proposal is materially larger than what it replaces?
- Does it identify Green Belt harm beyond inappropriateness?
- What evidence is said to outweigh Green Belt and other harm?
Appeal 30921 addresses street-scene harm, and the cited 63953 extract does not explain its dismissal. 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
3 November 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of single storey detached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and development plan policy; • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of [site address] and the Local Heritage Area; • the effect of the development on adjacent trees; and • if the development would be inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way 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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In view of the above, the proposal would not represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt and accords with, in particular, Policy DM26 of the Local Plan and G2 of the London Plan. It would also accord with the terms of the Framework given that it would not be materially larger than the building it would replace and would be maintained in the same use class.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
6 April 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as side/rear extension; internal alterations; detached games room rear of property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appeal site is within the Green Belt and so the main issues are: • Whether or not the proposed 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 proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; and • If the proposed development 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 required to justify the proposed development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Notwithstanding the Green Belt considerations above, I do not share the Council’s view that the resulting side elevation causes an unacceptable level of harm. Although it would present a greater scale and bulk to the street scene and would be visible from a reasonable distance along [address], it would be of a scale and design that would be in keeping with the area and I do not find harm would be caused in this regard.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
11 October 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
ground and first floor new rear extension; new side dormer to roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: (i) whether or not 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, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion and on balance, the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm, in addition to the other harm identified is not clearly outweighed by other considerations and therefore the very special circumstances needed to justify the proposed development do not exist.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
3 February 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a loft conversion to include front and rear dormers and side rooflights.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) The effect on the character and appearance of the house and the local area; ii) Whether the proposal would be for inappropriate development in the Green Belt and if so, the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and iii) The effect on living conditions at neighbouring properties.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed extensions would be relatively small in scale and the Council does not argue that they would be disproportionate additions, either in themselves or in conjunction with any other extension. These extensions appear to be well within the guidelines set out in CLP policy DM26. I find that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
10 October 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing two storey extension / conservatory and erection of new part single, part two-storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: (i) whether or not 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; (iii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; (iv) whether or not the proposal would be acceptable in terms of fire safety; 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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion and on balance, the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm, in addition to the other harm identified is not clearly outweighed by other considerations and therefore the very special circumstances needed to justify the proposed development do not exist.
Paragraph 23 · Source page 4