Erewash Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused for inappropriate Green Belt development in Erewash?
The selected examples show why Green Belt extensions were criticised and when 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
- 5 of 15
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 5 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: Erewash LPA (52.93552, −1.34673). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Erewash Borough Council appeal findings
Erewash Green Belt inappropriateness: openness and infilling
The matched local set includes a split decision, so this review compares only allowed and dismissed examples.
Counted against appeals
Dismissed extension: openness and dwelling harm
Inappropriate Green Belt development
The two-storey rear extension was found to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Reduced Green Belt openness
The loss of openness, together with inappropriateness, attracted substantial weight.
Host dwelling character harm
Harm to the host dwelling’s character and appearance added to the overall harm.
Helped or needed
Allowed cases: limited infilling and no openness harm
Limited village infilling
A double garage was treated as limited infilling in a village, so it was not inappropriate development.
No openness harm concluded
The conclusion for a dwelling extension was no inappropriateness and no harm to Green Belt openness or other respects.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say the proposal is inappropriate development?
- Does it explain any loss of Green Belt openness?
- Does it identify harm to the host dwelling’s character and appearance?
The allowed orangery extract gives only a conclusion, not the inspector’s detailed analysis. 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
3 examples
11 December 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey side extension to create an orangery including flat roof with lantern light, French doors and glazing.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appeal site lies within the Green Belt, therefore the main issues are: - • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) • if the proposal is found to be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, I find that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would accord with policy 3 and 10 of the [name] (2014) and [name] GB4 and DC2 of the Erewash Borough Saved Policies Document and the provisions of the Framework.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 3
9 May 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a double garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
I consider the main issues are: • whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Stanley Conservation Area (Conservation Area) and, • if the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 2 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
As such, it would represent limited infilling in a village. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would not be contrary to the Framework in this regard. It would also not conflict with Policy 3 of the [name] ([name]) or with Policy GB2 of the Saved Local Plan which seek, amongst other matters, for the principle of the Green Belt to be retained. A finding of the acceptability of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it are implicit in a finding of it not being inappropriate development. I am not therefore required to consider this matter further or the need to demonstrate very special circumstances.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
25 October 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
an extension to the existing dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The site lies within an area of Green Belt. Therefore, the main issues are: • 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.; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • If the development is inappropriate, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, nor would there be harm to the openness of the Green Belt or in other respects. Consequently, there is no conflict with the development plan or the Framework.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
1 example
30 September 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for two storey rear extension, loft conversion and dormers.
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; • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property; 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. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/N1025/D/24/3337753
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have found that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and also, that it would reduce the openness of the Green Belt. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/N1025/D/24/3337753 The harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness and the loss of openness, attracts substantial weight. Additionally, I have found the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling, which adds to the overall harm.
Paragraph 23 · Source pages 4, 5
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
6 November 2025 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
a garage extension and provision of solar panels to existing garage roof.
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; • 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, having regard to the conservation area and listed building status of the appeal property 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 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal for an extension to the garage would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt with a limited loss of spatial openness. The Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm in the Green Belt. The absence of harm to the conservation area is a matter of neutral weight. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations. The other considerations outlined above do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify this part of the development do not exist and thus this part of the proposal would conflict with the Development Plan and the Framework.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 5