Hertsmere Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt inappropriateness in Hertsmere?
Learn which Green Belt harms counted against local appeals and what the allowed examples 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
- 9 of 86
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 8
- of 9 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: Hertsmere LPA (51.677287, −0.281049). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Hertsmere Borough Council appeal findings
Green Belt openness and stated exceptions
The displayed examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and the allowed extracts give conclusions rather than detailed analysis.
Counted against appeals
Where extensions reduced Green Belt openness
A visibly larger extension
The proposed rear extension would make the dwelling a visibly larger mass, causing spatial and visual change that reduced Green Belt openness.
Inappropriate development carried substantial weight
An inspector gave substantial weight to harm from inappropriate Green Belt development, alongside harm to openness.
Helped or needed
When development was not inappropriate
An extension within an exception
The inspector concluded that the side and rear extension was not inappropriate development and accorded with a Framework exception.
Openness harm was not substantial
For the restaurant building, limited visual and moderate spatial harm to openness was not substantial, and the inspector found it was not inappropriate.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a visibly larger mass or reduced Green Belt openness?
- Does it explain why the development is inappropriate in the Green Belt?
- Does it say whether a Framework exception applies to the proposal?
Appeal 63699’s cited reasoning concerns dormer design, not Green Belt inappropriateness. 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
2 examples
21 May 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of two-storey side and rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the Shenley Conservation Area (CA).
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would be in accordance with CS Policy CS13 and DMP Policy SADM26 and the exception set out in paragraph 154c) of the Framework.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
16 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
retrospective application to retain modified and refaced single story flat roofed timber facing building with proposed additional landscaping and continued use as a restaurant and use of existing hotel parking.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; and • if it 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 required to justify the development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, whilst I find there would be some limited visual and moderate spatial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, that harm would not be substantial. Therefore, the proposal would accord with the exception at paragraph 154g of the Framework and is not deemed to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Consequently, there is no need for me to consider whether any very special circumstances exist. By reason of being in accordance with the Framework, the development would also comply with Policies CS13 of the HCS and Policy SADM26 of the SADMPP.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
28 September 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension.
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 relevant policies of the Development Plan; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area; and, • If the proposal is inappropriate development, 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 it.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would extend the appeal dwelling, resulting in a visually larger mass of development. This would result in a spatial and visual change to the property and its environs and the openness of the Green Belt would be reduced. Although the reduction in openness would be limited and localised, it would nonetheless cause harm to the Green Belt.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
29 January 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the conversion of a loft to habitable space to include rear dormer, the insertion of 2x front roof lights, and alterations to fenestration.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Although the appeal site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt, it is common ground between the Council and appellant that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Based on all the evidence before me I see no reason to take a different view, so there is no need for me to consider whether or not the development is justified by very special circumstances in respect of its Green Belt location.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Planning permission was granted in May 2024 for alterations to the appeal property, including a rear dormer ([name]: 23/1467/HSE). Given the appellant’s obvious desire to extend the property, it appears to me that there is a very real prospect of that fallback scheme being carried out in the event of my dismissing this appeal. I do not, however, accept the appellant’s argument that that earlier permission establishes that the design, mass and bulk of this appeal proposal are acceptable. The dormer approved in May 2024 would be set further above the eaves, and would be slightly narrower, than that proposed here, nor would it straddle the valley between the main roof slope and the rear outrigger. As a result, the harm I have identified in paragraph 11 arising from the size, form and positioning of the dormer would not be present in the fallback case. I therefore consider that this appeal proposal would be significantly more harmful to the character and appearance of the area than the fallback scheme would be.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
2 September 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of two-storey side and single-storey rear and basement extensions with internal alterations. Rebuilding of a side wall and restoration of existing outbuilding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposed 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 and the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; 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 proposed development. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - null APP/N1920/D/23/3329727 APP/N1920/D/23/3329727 ______________________________________________________________________________
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I conclude that the proposed development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Substantial weight should be given to this harm. Harm to the openness of the Green Belt has also been identified. The proposed development would be contrary to the relevant provisions of CS Policy CS13 and DMPP Policy SADM26, which, in summary, seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3