East Hertfordshire District Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in East Hertfordshire?
See what the selected examples say about additions, openness 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
- 61 of 220
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 17
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 44
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 59
- of 61 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: East Hertfordshire LPA (51.865109, −0.008196). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
East Hertfordshire District Council appeal findings
Proportionate extensions in East Hertfordshire’s Green Belt
A selected dismissal also concerns bats, and a conclusion-only extract omits its preceding assessment.
Counted against appeals
Where Green Belt harm counted against extensions
Height left the extension visible
Hedging and mature boundary vegetation did not stop the building being visible in some views, so openness would not be preserved.
Other considerations did not outweigh Green Belt harm
The Inspector concluded that other considerations did not clearly outweigh the total Green Belt harm, leaving no very special circumstances.
Helped or needed
What helped proposals avoid Green Belt inappropriateness
Additions stayed proportionate
The rear additions were just within the limits proportionate to the original dwelling, so they were not disproportionate.
Openness harm was not substantial
The Inspector concluded that some harm to openness was not substantial, so it did not make the proposal inappropriate.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify height or views that would reduce Green Belt openness?
- Are the proposed additions proportionate to the original dwelling?
- Does the refusal explain why other considerations do not outweigh Green Belt harm?
The visual-assessment extract does not state why that appeal was ultimately dismissed. 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 November 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of single storey lean-to at rear of house and erection of Z a double storey rear extension in its place. `
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 relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I find that the resulting additions would just be within the limits of what would be proportionate to the size of the original dwelling. The proposal would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building and would thus satisfy Framework paragraph 154(c) and as such it would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
18 December 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolish existing car-port and erect a detached garage with side store.
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 relevant development plan policies, including the effect upon the openness of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Taking these factors together, whilst there would be some harm to openness, it would not amount to substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Consequently, the proposal would not be inappropriate development through paragraph 154 g) of the Framework. Based on the above assessment, I have identified no conflict with Policy GBR1 of the EHDP.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
13 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the building of a ground floor front extension by reallocating the previously approved rear extension (95m2) Ref 3/25/0469/PNHH.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the 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 including any relevant effects on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development on 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 to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In assessing the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, I am mindful that the appeal property is partially screened from the road by high hedging and mature boundary vegetation. However, given its height, the building would be visible in some views where it would be discernible. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt, albeit in the context of the scale of the proposal and location in a residential area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
30 March 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
two storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt, 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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt that has both visual and spatial aspects. The main visual impacts of the proposal would be the additional massing of the proposed extension, particularly at first floor and roof level since much of the area of the ground floor footprint is occupied by part of the existing dwelling. The proposed extension would adjoin the existing two-storey brick projection and would be behind the conservatory, reducing its prominence. The rear garden is very large, and the appeal property is set down from a stepped terraced lawn. Boundary treatments include brick walls and tall vegetation. Beyond the rear garden are areas of woodland and the appeal property is distant from public spaces, such as the public highway. Views of the proposal would therefore be generally limited to spaces within the appeal property’s rear garden, and its visual impacts would be modest.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
12 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a single-storey rear extension and alterations to the existing rear dormers.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to any relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”). • The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt. • The effect of the proposed development on protected bat species. • If the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, 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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Even if I was to discount the potential harm to bat species as a best-case scenario for the appellant, the weight I must attach to the totality of the Green Belt harm would not be clearly outweighed by other considerations. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist. For those reasons the proposal conflicts with EHDP Policy GBR1 and the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations that outweigh that finding. Accordingly, the proposal is unacceptable, and the appeal should be dismissed.
Paragraph 27 · Source page 5