Dacorum Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused for inappropriate Green Belt development in Dacorum?
See Green Belt objections in selected Dacorum appeals and what the allowed examples actually say.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 37 of 110
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 30
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 36
- of 37 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: Dacorum LPA (51.778195, −0.540893). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Dacorum Borough Council appeal findings
Green Belt openness and added harm
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and the allowed extracts give only brief conclusions.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt harm and openness
Clear outweighing was required
The Inspector said Green Belt and other harm had to be clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Openness was separate harm
For the detached garage, loss of openness was treated alongside inappropriateness as harm needing clear outweighing.
Character harm added weight
The extension was also said to harm the dwelling and area’s character and appearance, alongside Green Belt harm and lost openness.
Helped or needed
What helped the allowed extensions
No further openness assessment
The double garage was found not to be inappropriate development, so the Inspector did not consider openness further.
Moderate harm was not substantial
For the side extension, moderate harm to openness was not considered substantial under the Framework threshold cited by the Inspector.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal call the work inappropriate development, or identify other harm?
- Does it explain any loss of Green Belt openness?
- What evidence addresses every harm named in the refusal?
The Dacorum extension example also covers character and appearance, making that point secondary to this Green Belt page. 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
19 October 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the construction of double garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is 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.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The reason for refusal indicates that the proposal would affect the openness of the Green Belt. However, as I have found that the proposal would not be 1 [name] v SSLUHC, [name] & [name] [2022] EWHC 2145 (Admin) inappropriate development, paragraph 149 c) does not require me to consider this aspect any further. I therefore have not done so.
Paragraph 9 · Source pages 2, 3
4 February 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a two-storey side 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 National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies, including its effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
In any case, I attribute more weight to the Framework given this is more up to date. The threshold for harm in the Framework only requires that the development should not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The moderate harm identified does not amount to substantial harm to openness, in the context of paragraph 154(g) of the Framework.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
6 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
retention of front extension and front canopy with relocation of front entrance way.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the appeal scheme is 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 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
Paragraph 153 of the Framework advises that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless that harm resulting from the proposal, and any other harm, are clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
31 August 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
detached garage.
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 relevant policies of the Development Plan; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and, • If the proposal is 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 required to justify it.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Framework makes it clear at Paragraph 148 that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. In this case, such harm would relate to the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and the reduction in openness. It establishes that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
29 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear and double storey side extensions and external and internal alterations.
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; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and 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 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appeal scheme would be inappropriate development that would, by definition, harm the Green Belt. There would be loss of openness. Further, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and of the area. The Framework requires that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt and any other harm.
Paragraph 27 · Source page 4