Dartford Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused for inappropriate Green Belt development in Dartford?
See the selected examples’ Green Belt objections and the conclusions reached where development was not inappropriate.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 18 of 89
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 13
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 15
- of 18 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: Dartford LPA (51.429859, 0.247608). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Dartford Borough Council appeal findings
Why Dartford Green Belt harm outweighed claimed benefits
The displayed examples have a higher share of allowed appeals than the matched local set. Allowed extracts 75229 and 86752 give conclusions, not supporting facts.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt harm was not outweighed
Private benefits carried little weight
For the porch and window changes, benefits limited to occupants carried minimal weight against Green Belt openness and character harm.
Openness harm carried substantial weight
For the proposed replacement house, Green Belt inappropriateness and openness harm carried substantial cumulative weight.
Other considerations had to outweigh harm
This extract says Green Belt harm, including openness harm, had to be clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Helped or needed
Allowed Green Belt conclusions
The garage met an exception
For the detached garage, the Inspector concluded an exception applied, so openness did not need further consideration.
No supporting facts are shown
Appeal 86752 concludes the development was not inappropriate, but the extract does not explain the supporting facts.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal identify harm to Green Belt openness?
- Does it discount benefits limited to your household?
- Does it explain why a Green Belt exception does not apply?
The displayed examples span garages, house changes, replacement housing and new dwellings. 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
22 August 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of detached double garage with rooms in the roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is 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.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would therefore accord with exception d) of paragraph 154 of the Framework and policy M12 of the DP and would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. [name] have found that the proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt it is therefore not necessary to consider the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, including the cumulative effect of other extensions and outbuildings, or the purposes of including land within it.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
30 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is 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 the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, I find that the development would comply with paragraph 154 b) of the Framework and therefore would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Consequently, I find that the development would accord with Policy ME12 of the DP, which requires that inappropriate development in the Green Belt is resisted in accordance with national planning policy and that proposals for equine development are carefully considered in terms of location, layout, the need for the size of buildings in relation to the use of the land and the quality of buildings and landscaping.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
13 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
1 no. glass double height porch, existing garage to have new proposed windows, all new windows to the main house.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in 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 any relevant development plan policies; • The effects of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property and 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
As stated by paragraph 148, very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The extent of the proposal’s benefits would be limited to its occupants, and thus carry minimal weight. Such other considerations do not therefore clearly outweigh the substantial harm to Green Belt openness and modest harm to character and appearance, and do not amount to very special circumstances. On this basis, the Framework indicates the appeal proposal should be refused.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
8 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘demolish existing timber framed house, garage and outbuilding followed by erecting a 3 bed detached house and detached garage’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal 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 proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area; 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
The proposal would cause harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness, as well as harm to openness, and substantial weight must be given cumulatively to this harm. I have also found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The other considerations advanced in this case do not clearly outweigh the substantial harm that I have identified.
Paragraph 30 · Source pages 4, 5
22 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing garage and the erection of two semi-detached dwellings with parking together with new/altered vehicle and pedestrian access .
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: - • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including any relevant effects on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area; • Whether the site is a suitable location for residential development, having regard to access to goods and services; • Whether the proposal would provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers; • The effect of the proposal on the supply of protected open space; • The effect of the proposal on protected species, with particular regard to bats; • Whether the proposal makes suitable provision for biodiversity; • The effect of the proposal on highway safety; 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 pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The Framework, at Paragraph 153 states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness and that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 153 further advises 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 79 · Source page 10