London Borough of Hillingdon appeal evidence
Refused for inappropriate Green Belt development in Hillingdon?
See the selected examples’ Green Belt concerns and the facts to test against 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
- 5 of 389
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 5 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 4 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Hillingdon LPA (51.541513, −0.445636). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Hillingdon appeal findings
Hillingdon Green Belt harm and claimed benefits
The matched local set has no allowed appeal, so the selected examples show dismissed reasoning only.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt harm counted against proposals
Openness harm carried substantial weight
The selected wraparound extension was found inappropriate and harmful to Green Belt openness.
Extra accommodation did not outweigh harm
In appeal 53728, additional accommodation did not clearly outweigh Green Belt, design, light and outlook harms.
Other considerations did not outweigh harm
The considerations advanced were insufficient individually or together to clearly outweigh Green Belt and other harm.
No allowed example matched
No allowed Hillingdon Green Belt example
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Benefits must outweigh every harm
In the selected examples, other considerations had to clearly outweigh Green Belt harm and any other harm.
No greater effect on openness
Appeal 42626 found the extension not disproportionate and with no greater impact on openness.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify inappropriate development in the Green Belt?
- Does it explain how your proposal would harm openness?
- What other considerations could clearly outweigh every harm in your refusal?
Appeal 53728 also considers dormer design and bedroom light and outlook beyond Green Belt harm. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Read the reasoning in matched appeal decisions
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.
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
27 November 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
addition of dormer to rear roof of integral garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate 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 proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be an extension to an original dwelling, which the parties consider would not result in disproportionate additions. It would therefore accord with Policy DMEl 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2, Development Management Policies, 2020, (DMP) which includes amongst other things that extensions in the Green Belt must not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt, and the purposes of including land within it. It would also accord with chapter 13 of the Framework.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
20 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
construction of a part single-storey, part two-storey side/rear wraparound extension and a front porch, following demolition of existing front porch and side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would constitute 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 proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area; 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
The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm openness. As such, the Framework requires that the harm by reason of inappropriateness be given substantial weight, and that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
9 July 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
extensions and loft conversion including dormers.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The site is in the Green Belt. The main issues in the appeal are: • whether the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework ‘NPPF’ and development plan policies • its effect on the openness of the Green Belt • in relation to the proposed dormer structures, their effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling • in relation to the proposed dormer structures, their effect on the living conditions of existing and future residents of the appeal property in relation to light, ventilation and outlook • if the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations and if so, whether there are very special circumstances justifying the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
In terms of potential harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling from the proposed rear extension, I consider that owing to it being at the rear of the dwelling and having a modest depth it would not cause undue harm. I have noted that its height would conflict with policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (adopted 2020), but nevertheless its overall size and scale would not cause unacceptable harm. 10.Turning to the dormers, two are proposed in the west roof slope, two in the east roof slope, one in the front roof slope and one in the rear roof slope. Whilst each is proposed with sympathetic pitched roofs with front hips, the size and number would overwhelm the modest appearance of the dwelling resulting in a cluttered, disproportionate and top heavy appearance to the dwelling. They would dominate the dwelling. This would be exacerbated by the fact that from the front the dwelling already appears unduly squeezed into its plot in terms of its width, leaving only a modest gap between the western flank and the common boundary with no.[address] and a single storey side extension on the eastern flank of the dwelling being built almost up to the common boundary with no.[address] to the east. 11.On my site visit, I noted extensions including dormers which had been undertaken in the immediate area, however, I have judged the proposed development on its own individual merits and conclude that the proposed dormers would be unduly harmful. Furthermore, the dividing wall of the proposed bedrooms in the front and rear dormers in the roof divides those windows vertically in half in visual terms. This is poor design in my view and would also be detrimental to the character and appearance of the resulting dwelling. 12.On this issue, I conclude that the proposed dormers would significantly harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and would be contrary to policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - [name] (adopted 2012), policies DMHB 11 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (adopted 2020) and policy D3 of the London Plan (2021). Living conditions of Existing and [name] 13.In the roof space, two proposed bedrooms at the rear and two proposed bedrooms at the front would each be served by one dormer window which would have a vertical intersecting wall dividing each of the two windows in two. The amount of natural light reaching each of those bedrooms would be extremely low, especially as each is an L-shape and the main floor area of each bedroom is located away from the windows making it hard for light to penetrate the main part of each bedroom. 14.Turning to consideration of the living conditions of a future occupant, the ‘half’ window serving each room would be unacceptably small and also distant from the main area of the bedroom. This would give an undue sense of enclosure and oppressiveness for any occupant of those bedrooms. In relation to the potential for ventilation there would be a top light opening window for each bedroom and I consider that this, on balance and taking account of the configuration of rooms on the proposed upper floor, would be sufficient to adequately ventilate the bedroom. 15.I therefore consider that there would be an unacceptable level of light and outlook to the first floor bedrooms causing unacceptable living conditions for current and future occupiers, contrary to the spirit of policy DMHB 16 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (adopted 2020). The balancing exercise 16.I have found the proposed development to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. NPPF policy indicates that substantial weight against the grant of planning permission must be attached to inappropriate development in the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness. In addition to this harm, I have found that there would be some limited harm to the openness of the Green Belt. There would also be harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling from the proposed dormer structures and there would be harm to the living conditions of existing and future occupants of the host dwelling by reason of inadequate light and outlook to the proposed bedrooms. I have borne in mind the benefits that would flow from having additional accommodation at the appeal site, however, my conclusion is that the harm I have identified is not clearly outweighed by other considerations in this case. Consequently, very special circumstances do not exist to allow the grant of planning permission for the proposed development.
Paragraph 9 · Source pages 2, 3, 4
1 November 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘changing the existing roof and the loft floor.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues 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 of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the area, having particular regard to its location within the HVCA; 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 the proposed development.
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Having regard to the other considerations advanced by the appellant, they are not sufficient individually or collectively to clearly outweigh the substantial weight which must be given to the Green Belt harm and the other harm I have found. Therefore, they do not amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposed development.
Paragraph 32 · Source page 5