Guildford Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused as inappropriate Green Belt development in Guildford?
Learn what the selected examples say about inappropriate Green Belt development and what to check in your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 100 of 215
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 32
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 66
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 97
- of 100 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: Guildford LPA (51.24778, −0.561616). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Guildford Borough Council appeal findings
Was the addition disproportionate in Guildford’s Green Belt?
The selected examples contain mainly allowed appeals; the matched local set has a different outcome mix. The dismissed extract only gives a general test.
Counted against appeals
The dismissed Green Belt test
Harm needed clear outweighing
The dismissed extract records that inappropriate development needed other considerations to clearly outweigh Green Belt and any other harm.
Helped or needed
When additions were not disproportionate
Size against the original building
Inspectors found additions not disproportionate against the original building, including after earlier extensions and in one very specific location.
No further Green Belt balance
Once a proposal was found not inappropriate, the Inspector did not need to assess openness, Green Belt purposes or very special circumstances.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal notice explain why your addition is disproportionate to the original building?
- Which earlier extensions does the refusal include in its comparison?
- Does the refusal identify other harm that must be outweighed?
One allowed extract gives only its conclusion, and the dismissed extract gives no case-specific 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
4 examples
29 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
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
I find that having regard to all the above and the increased size of dwelling that has resulted from previous extensions, the proposal would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building and therefore would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
1 March 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as a single storey rear extension, two storey front extension, and conversion of attic to bedroom and ensuite.
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 any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
As the proposal would not be inappropriate development, it is not necessary to further consider the effect of the proposal on openness or the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. Nor is it necessary to consider very special circumstances. There is also no other harm to weigh it against.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
10 November 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for the demolition of existing front walling and front flue, erection of ground floor infill porch, finished with open oak structure, replacement flue and alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is: • whether the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Metropolitan Green Belt (the Green Belt) having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, in this instance and very specific location, and in the planning judgement, I do not find that the proposal would represent a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. I conclude therefore, that the proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
14 March 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a WildKitchen.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I conclude that the development is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The development therefore accords with paragraph 154 of the Framework and the relevant provisions of Policy P2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites (2019) which, in summary, seeks to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
1 example
15 November 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for a retrospective application to incorporate as-built amendments to lawful development certificate 16/P/01670, approved on 04/10/2016 and planning permission 16/P/02587, approved on 14/02/2017; proposed two storey side extension, extension to approved two storey rear extension and loft conversion to habitable accommodation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is: • whether the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Metropolitan Green Belt (the Green Belt), having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 148 of the Framework requires that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Moreover, 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 development, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2