Dorset Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt additions in Dorset?
See which Dorset Green Belt additions concerned inspectors and the evidence that supported a proportionate alteration.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 23 of 177
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 20
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 22
- of 23 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: Dorset LPA (50.806307, −2.333431). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Dorset Council appeal findings
Dorset Green Belt additions and openness
The selected examples give limited comparison because the extract on proportionate additions is brief.
Counted against appeals
Where additions harmed Green Belt openness
Other considerations carried limited weight
The inspector said the reduction in openness and inappropriate development carried substantial weight, while other considerations did not clearly outweigh that harm.
Loft conversion added more volume
The proposed loft conversion was judged moderately more harmful to visual openness than the fallback extensions because of its increased volume.
Limited openness harm still mattered
For the timber garage, inappropriate development and limited harm to openness both attracted substantial weight.
Helped or needed
Evidence on Green Belt scale and visibility
Additions stayed proportionate
The inspector found the alterations did not create disproportionate additions over the original building, so they did not conflict with the Framework.
Views were limited by the site
Setback, hedgerow and vegetation limited views. The inspector found no significant visual effect on openness, but the extract does not explain the dismissal.
Other considerations needed clear weight
The conclusion says the other considerations had limited weight and did not clearly outweigh the identified Green Belt harm.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify additions beyond the original building?
- Does it separate physical and visual loss of Green Belt openness?
- Does it explain why other considerations carry limited weight?
The selected 80061 extract records visibility but not the rest of the Inspector’s reasoning. 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
11 August 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as, ‘Demolish first floor lean-to extension, veranda, porch and chimney stacks. Erect glazed garden room, replacement porch and veranda. Remodel existing dormer roofs and create viewing gallery, increase height of one chimney stack, with associated internal alterations. Install 3no. air source heat pumps on Annexe building’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is whether the appeal 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.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I also find that there would be no conflict with the Framework. Paragraph 149c of the Framework sets out that development in the Green Belt is not considered to be inappropriate if the extension or alteration of a building does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building and I have concluded that they would not.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
4 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
side, rear extensions, additional storey, new 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 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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would result in a reduction in its openness. These matters therefore carry substantial weight. Taken together, I find that the other considerations in this case only carry limited weight and as such do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist. Therefore, the proposal would not comply with the Green Belt aims of Policy KS3 of the [name], or ‘saved’ Policy GB3 of the Local Plan, or the Framework, and consequently would be unacceptable.
Paragraph 23 · Source page 5
12 September 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erect ground floor extension, raise ridge of roof to allow loft conversion to include dormer windows.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if the proposed development is inappropriate, 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 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Concerning the side extension CLD and the rear extension subject of the [name] application, these would result in an increased length of the front elevation and projection to the rear of the existing dwelling compared to the proposed development. However, given the siting and single-storey scale of the side extension, harm to the visual openness of the Green Belt would be limited. Whilst there would be a difference in the depth of the proposed rear extension compared with the [name] scheme, this would not be of a scale sufficient to conclude a substantially increased degree of harm to the spatial openness of the Green Belt resulting from the [name] scheme. Regardless of the larger gross internal area of the combined fallback schemes, the increased volume of the proposed loft conversion, in comparison, would have a moderately more harmful effect on the visual openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, I afford these fallback scenarios, individually and in combination, moderate weight.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
17 August 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a timber frame 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 Framework and any relevant development plan policies. • If so, the effect of the proposal 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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Paragraph 148 of the Framework advises that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Moreover, very special circumstances justifying inappropriate development 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. In this case, the proposal amounts to inappropriate development, and limited harm would be caused to the openness of the Green Belt. These factors attract substantial weight.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 4
20 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
replace outbuilding with single storey extension. Add dormer, move front porch, add raised decking, raise height of windows/doors on rear wing.
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; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, so as to amount to very special circumstances.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I acknowledge that the dormer would not be particularly visible from public vantage points. Moreover, the link element of the proposal would not be readily seen from the public highway due to its single storey character and the considerable mature hedgerow on the boundary. Whilst some views of the appeal scheme would be visible from Public Footpath SE6/34 (the PF) which is adjacent to the Cottage, it is set back considerably from the PF. It also benefits from hedgerow and vegetation along the boundary which results in a secluded character. Consequently, the appeal scheme would not result in a significant effect on the visual aspect of openness of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 3