Gedling Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused for Green Belt inappropriateness in Gedling?
See which Green Belt concerns appeared in Gedling examples and what the allowed example concluded.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 15 of 50
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 13
- of 15 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: Gedling LPA (53.028415, −1.119366). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Gedling Borough Council appeal findings
Gedling Green Belt openness evidence
The selected examples include a split decision and have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. The allowed extract states a conclusion, not its reasons.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt concerns in dismissed appeals
Extensions combined to reduce openness
For a conservatory, the Inspector found its size, volume, bulk and floorspace, combined with existing extensions, failed to preserve Green Belt openness.
Benefits did not outweigh Green Belt harm
In a conclusion-only extract, the Inspector gave some weight to living-condition and construction benefits, but found other considerations too modest to outweigh Green Belt harm.
Green Belt harm needed clear counterweight
The Inspector said the proposal was inappropriate and would not preserve openness. Other considerations had to clearly outweigh that Green Belt harm.
Helped or needed
Raised wall was not inappropriate
No openness assessment followed
For the raised driveway wall, the Inspector concluded it was not inappropriate development. Openness and very special circumstances were therefore not assessed.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify added size, volume, bulk or floorspace alongside earlier extensions?
- Does it say the proposal fails to preserve Green Belt openness?
- Which stated benefits does the refusal say are too modest?
The allowed raised-wall extract gives its conclusion, not the reasons supporting it. 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
30 March 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
existing driveway wall to be raised in height by approximately 475mm to a maximum height of 1675mm and removal of conifer hedge.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the development 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; • If the proposal would be 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 2 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
In respect of the second and third main issues, given the development would not be inappropriate development, there is no requirement for me to assess the impact of the development on the openness of the Green Belt or to assess whether there are any other considerations which would amount to very special circumstances. Therefore, in this regard the development would accord with the Framework and ACS Policy 3.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
23 September 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as an “erection of single storey conservatory extension to rear of property”.
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 Framework and development plan policy, • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, and • if the development is inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I note the appellant’s additional argument that it is debateable whether the side structure has any additional impact on the openness of the green belt. However, the matter before me is whether the proposed conservatory extension would harm the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, in my judgement, the size, volume, bulk and floorspace of the appeal proposal, combined with existing extensions, would fail, in spatial terms, to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. As openness is an essential characteristic of Green Belts, the appeal proposal would cause harm in this regard.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
11 January 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
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. • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. • 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. The proposal would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the Framework is clear that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and 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 16 · Source page 3
5 September 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
extensions and alterations.
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; • if the development is inappropriate in the Green Belt, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, openness 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 page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I give some weight to the improvement in living conditions and economic benefits associated with construction. However, all other considerations combined are relatively modest and are outweighed by the substantial weight which must be given to the Green Belt harm identified. The other considerations in this case are therefore clearly insufficient to demonstrate very special circumstances.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
27 November 2023 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
removal of the existing rear conservatory, proposed single-storey extension to the front and rear, alterations to the rear dormer roof and the conversion of existing detached garage forming an annex.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to 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 • if the development is inappropriate, 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 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, having regard to the explicit requirements of the development plan, I find that the extensions and alterations to the main dwelling would be disproportionate and would not fall within the exception identified at paragraph 149c) of the Framework. This element of the proposals would therefore constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 10 · Source pages 2, 3