Kirklees Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in Kirklees?
See which Green Belt harm, conditions and scale details appeared in the selected Kirklees appeal examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 27 of 160
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 22
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 26
- of 27 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: Kirklees LPA (53.635607, −1.748179). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Kirklees Council appeal findings
Kirklees Green Belt harm, benefits and roof scale
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set and offer only limited allowed reasoning.
Counted against appeals
Why Green Belt appeals were dismissed
Benefits did not outweigh Green Belt harm
The stated other considerations received limited weight or did not clearly outweigh identified Green Belt harm.
Conditions could not change the scheme
The Inspector said conditions could not substantively change the proposal. Openness harm was visual and spatial, particularly from site domestication.
Helped or needed
What helped the Green Belt roof change
Limited roof increase was not disproportionate
The limited roof-height increase was not visible from the street and did not dominate the original building. It was judged not disproportionate.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your proposal harm Green Belt openness visually or spatially?
- Can your claimed benefits clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm?
- Is your proposal’s scale limited enough to avoid disproportionate enlargement?
The allowed roof-change example also involved character and appearance, so it is a narrow comparison for this Green Belt page. 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
2 December 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘minor changes to entrance area.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are a) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; and b) 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 result in a limited increase in height of the roof of an existing two-storey extension that is not visible from the street. The ridge line would be lower than the ridge line of the original building, with the eaves lower than that of the western part of the house. As such the proposed alterations would not dominate the original building. Overall, I am satisfied that, as a matter of judgement, the limited scale of the proposed alterations together with the previous extensions would not be disproportionate to the original building and therefore would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The proposal would thus satisfy the Green Belt protection aims of Paragraph 149 of the Framework and LP Policy LP57. Given my conclusions in this respect, it is not necessary for me to consider the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
25 May 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as extension and alterations to existing granny annex to form two storey dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised Framework and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Framework states at paragraph 147 that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. In accordance with the Framework, substantial weight must be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 24 · Source page 4
29 November 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of leisure annex.
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; • the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and • would the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, 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
For the reasons given, I afford limited weight to the various matters that have been advanced by the appellant in support of the proposal. Consequently, I conclude that the other considerations put forward would not, in their totality, clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt that I have identified. The very special circumstances necessary to justify the development therefore do not exist and the development would conflict with the Green Belt protection aims of the Framework.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
8 July 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Demolition of [name] and Erection of [name].
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this proposal are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect on the openness of the Green Belt; • Would the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, 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 appellant has suggested they would accept conditions to reduce the height of the building, reduce the scale of the curtilage as well as securing the details of the materials. Where an appeal is submitted it is made against the proposal that was determined by the Council and based on the plans submitted at the application stage, and on which views of interested parties were sought. I am not satisfied that it would be possible to substantively change the nature of the proposal by way of a condition. Amended plans would be required and further consultation may be needed, and it is not possible to undertake such consultation in regard to this appeal. Nonetheless, these matters would not override the overall harm caused by the proposal to the openness of the Green Belt in both visual and spatial terms for the reasons discussed above, particularly having regard to the increased impact arising from the domestication of the site. Limited weight is therefore afforded to this point.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
2 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a 2 storey rear extension and single storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are; i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; ii) the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; iii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and iv) 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 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Given the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm, the other identified harm, and lack of other considerations, the harm is not clearly outweighed as required by the Framework. The very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not therefore exist. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Paragraph 29 · Source page 5