Elmbridge Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in Elmbridge?
See why selected Elmbridge appeals found development inappropriate, and which comparisons or circumstances supported the allowed examples.
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 204
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 18
- 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: Elmbridge LPA (51.35714, −0.392142). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Elmbridge Borough Council appeal findings
Elmbridge Green Belt: original buildings and special circumstances
The selected examples favour allowed appeals over the matched local set, so the dismissed reasoning shown here is limited.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt harm in the dismissed example
The proposal harmed Green Belt openness
In appeal 67859, the Inspector concluded that the proposal was inappropriate development and would harm Green Belt openness.
Other considerations had to outweigh harm
In appeal 67859, the Inspector stated that very special circumstances require other considerations to clearly outweigh Green Belt and other harm.
Helped or needed
Green Belt tests in allowed examples
Additions stayed proportionate
Appeals 86672 and 16222 found the extensions or alterations were not disproportionate additions over the original building.
The original building set the baseline
Appeal 53721 described the original building as its 1948 form or, if later built, its first-built form.
Other considerations outweighed Green Belt harm
Appeal 73306 concluded that other considerations clearly outweighed Green Belt harm and demonstrated the required very special circumstances.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say the work is disproportionate to the original building?
- Does it identify harm to Green Belt openness?
- What other considerations does it say clearly outweigh that harm?
The sole dismissed extract is conclusion-only on Green Belt harm, so it does not show the proposal details or balancing evidence. 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
4 examples
27 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as a single storey extension following demolition of existing conservatory.
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 the development plan.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I find that the proposal would not comprise inappropriate development within the Green Belt as defined by the Framework. The proposal would not comply with part (a)(ii) of Policy DM18 of the Development Management Plan the refers to acceptable percentage increase. However, as explained above, the proposed extension would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, and would therefore be compliant with the main thrust of Policy DM18.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
10 June 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
0.9m increase in ridge height of link extension, 0.5m increase in chimney height and front and rear dormers.
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 the development plan; and • The effect of the proposed development on trees within the appeal site.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I find that the proposal would not comprise inappropriate development within the Green Belt as defined by the Framework. The proposal would not accord with part (a)(ii) of Policy DM18 of the Development Management Plan however, as explained above, the alterations would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, and would therefore be compliant with the main thrust of Policy DM18.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
9 July 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
retrospective application for front porch, alteration to fenestration and chimney stacks.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) (“the Framework”) and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the stated exceptions apply. This includes, at 154 c), the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The Glossary to the Framework defines ‘original building’ as a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally. Therefore, the definition of an ‘original building’ within the DMP is, in essence, identical to that within the Framework. Consequently, Policy DM18 of the DMP is consistent with the Framework.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
21 July 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolition of part of detached garage, and construction of new single storey rear orangery.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the development 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, 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
For the reasons set out above the harm to the Green Belt would be clearly outweighed by the other considerations and, therefore, the very special circumstances required to justify a grant of planning permission have been demonstrated. Consequently, the appeal should be allowed.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
1 example
10 April 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
extension and alterations to replace existing conservatory, together with alterations to existing basement swimming pool including the provision of replacement light lanterns and a sunken patio area to the south with new windows to pool area and retaining wall.
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 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 trees.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be inappropriate development and would harm Green Belt openness. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Harm to the Green Belt should be given substantial weight. 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 24 · Source page 4