Gravesham Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused for inappropriate Green Belt development in Gravesham?
See the selected examples' Green Belt concerns and recorded findings in allowed local decisions.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 31 of 150
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 20
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 30
- of 31 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: Gravesham LPA (51.404032, 0.396763). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Gravesham Borough Council appeal findings
Gravesham Green Belt: openness and additions
The selected examples include an allowed conclusion-only extract, so it does not show the reasoning behind that decision.
Counted against appeals
Gravesham openness and character harm
An outbuilding harmed openness
The Inspector found the outbuilding inappropriate and harmful to Green Belt openness, and gave that harm substantial weight.
Other considerations fell short
For extensions, dormers, rooflights and a replacement garage, other considerations did not clearly outweigh Green Belt openness and character harm.
Helped or needed
Gravesham exceptions for additions and size
Additions were not disproportionate
A rear extension and dormer were not disproportionate additions over the original building, so the Inspector did not need to assess Green Belt openness.
Size was more than floorspace
For extensions and a loft conversion, the Inspector said size included more than floorspace figures and gave the cited policy conflict little weight.
The conclusion records an exception
The extract says the development fell within a Green Belt exception and did not harm the surrounding area's character or appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say your additions are disproportionate to the original building?
- Does it identify a clear loss of Green Belt openness?
- Which other considerations does it say clearly outweigh Green Belt and character harm?
The extract from appeal 59784 is conclusion-only, so its underlying reasoning is unavailable. 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
13 April 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of single storey rear and first floor rear dormer extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) 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; ii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and iii) if the proposal would constitute 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 allow the appeal.
Paragraph 3 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development would not, therefore, result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building and would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, with regard to Paragraph 149(c) of the Framework. The proposal would accord with Policy CS02 of the CS and Policy C13 of the LP, so far as it is consistent with the Framework, and there is no requirement for me to assess the impact of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt or to consider whether very special circumstances exist to justify the development.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
29 November 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
rear and front extensions and a loft conversion.
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. • 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 2
Reasoning from the decision
Policy C13 includes other criteria which take the mass of the building into account. However, the fact that a development can fail simply on the basis of criterion ‘ii’ renders these additional considerations irrelevant in such circumstances. As such, this policy does not reflect the more wide ranging scope for alterations allowed under Framework Paragraph 149C, which refers to ‘size’, a term which encompasses more than simply a comparison of floorspace figures. As such, in considering the application of Policy C13 to development in the Green Belt, the policy is out-of-date and I do not afford the conflict with it any significant weight. 1 Gravesham Local Plan First Review: Saved and [name] (Sept 2014)
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
11 November 2024 · Allowed
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 development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and relevant development plan policies; and • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
It has been found that the development is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, falling under the exception in paragraph 154 (c) of the Framework. Furthermore, the development does not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
13 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
construction of an outbuilding.
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 National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies. • The effects 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 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As set out above, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm openness. Paragraph 148 of the Framework instructs that substantial weight be given to any harm to the Green Belt.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 4
13 February 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
extensions and new roof with dormers and rooflights. Demolition of existing garage and replacement with new garage, with re-siting of vehicular access
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 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. • 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 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Such other considerations do not therefore clearly outweigh the substantial harm to Green Belt openness and harm to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the harm to the Green Belt is not clearly outweighed by other considerations identified and therefore the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.
Paragraph 24 · Source page 4