London Borough of Harrow appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt openness in Harrow?
See why larger extensions harmed Green Belt openness and what the allowed decision actually 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
- 13 of 269
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 13
- of 13 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: Harrow LPA (51.597723, −0.341248). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Harrow appeal findings
How Harrow extensions reduced Green Belt openness
The allowed extract is conclusion-only, and the selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Extensions that reduced Green Belt openness
Larger and visible extensions
Combined extensions made the dwelling substantially or noticeably larger. Visible roof changes also reduced openness.
No design harm was neutral
The Inspector treated no harm to the house or area as neutral in the overall balance.
Other considerations fell short
The Inspector concluded that other considerations did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt and heritage harms.
Helped or needed
The allowed Green Belt finding
Not inappropriate development
The Inspector concluded that the development would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
No very special case required
The conclusion says very special circumstances were unnecessary because the development was not inappropriate.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say the combined extensions make the dwelling larger?
- Which parts of your proposal are visible at roof level?
- Does the refusal identify harm beyond Green Belt openness?
The allowed extract is conclusion-only, so it does not show the facts behind its Green Belt finding. 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
9 August 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of existing side/rear kitchen extension; erection of replacement side/rear single storey extension, accessibility ramp and associated works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether or not the proposed development would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any other relevant planning policies; and • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property (non-designated heritage asset), the setting of nearby listed buildings, locally listed Park and Garden and the [site address] Park Conservation Area.
Paragraph 3 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
The Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition harmful to the Green Belt. I have identified that the development would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and consequently no very special circumstances are necessary to justify a planning permission. Furthermore, I have found that there would be no harm to the heritage assets identified. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, having considered the development plan as a whole and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
18 September 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Demolition of garage and porch. Ground floor rear and side extension and relocated entrance. First floor side and rear extension. New roof with accommodation.
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 on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and locality; 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.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The ground floor extensions, and alterations to the rear of the roof would be less visible, although visible from neighbouring gardens. The effect on openness from these are not as significant. However, this does not mitigate the above, and that the appeal proposal would nevertheless substantially increase the size of the existing building and in doing so would harm the openness of the Green Belt in both visual and spatial terms. The Framework is clear that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. The harm identified above therefore weighs heavily against the proposal.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
8 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a “First floor front extensions & single storey rear infill extension & two storey rear/side & single storey infill extension to main house and granny annexe & rear extension to granny annexe inc. dormers to rear slope & internal alterations for wheelchair access to first floor.”
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appeal site is within the Green Belt and therefore the main issues are: • Whether the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and development plan policies, and the effect it would have 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have also had regard to the appellant’s position that the development would be subordinate to the existing dwelling and would not harm the character and appearance of the area. However, the Council did not refuse the application on grounds of harm to the character and appearance of the host property or wider area. Based on my observations on site, I see no reason to disagree with that assessment. In any case, the absence of harm in this respect is a neutral factor in the overall planning balance and does not weigh either for or against the proposal in relation to the identified harm to the Green Belt.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4
15 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Single and two storey side to rear extension; Single storey side extension; Roof lights in rear roof slope; External alterations (Demolition of rear extension, double garage, conservatory, side canopy, oil store and removal of swimming pool).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are a) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; b) its effect on the openness of the Green Belt; c) its effect on the character and appearance of the area with specific regard to a Non Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA), the [address] Conservation Area (CA) and the setting of a grade II listed building; and d) if the scheme would be inappropriate development, 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
There would be harm to the Green Belt by virtue of the appeal scheme being inappropriate development and unacceptably reducing openness. This attracts substantial weight. There would also be harm to the significance of the CA, a NDHA and the setting of a listed building. I have taken into account other considerations advanced and, for the reasons I have set out, they would not attract sufficient weight to clearly outweigh the harms I have found. Such that the very special circumstances needed to justify the appeal scheme do not exist. Material considerations do not therefore indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan, with which there would be multiple conflicts for the reasons I have given. Such that I am led to recommending the appeal is dismissed.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 5
9 August 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to demolish existing garage, erect new side and rear single storey extension, re-build porch in a central location, roof extension with gable ends, pitched dormer window to front, pitched gable end roof over existing flat roof to rear, 4 new bay windows to front.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the proposed development would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies. • The effect on the openness of the Green Belt. • The effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. • If the proposed extensions would amount to inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations, such as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed roof extensions and in particular the proposed hip to gable alterations and front dormer window would be clearly visible in the street scene, exacerbated by the elevated position of the appeal dwelling and its position between two lower bungalows. This would reduce openness at roof level. However, compared with earlier schemes there would be no increased loss of openness to the side of the dwelling, and this would limit the harm. The ground floor extensions and roof alterations to the rear would be less visible and their effect on openness would be less significant. Nevertheless, the combined extent of all the proposed extensions and alterations would result in a noticeably larger dwelling that would harm the openness of the Green Belt in both visual and spatial terms.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3