Leeds City Council appeal evidence
Refused for inappropriate Green Belt development in Leeds?
You will see cited local examples of Green Belt inappropriateness and Framework exceptions.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 25 of 500
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 18
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 24
- of 25 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: Leeds LPA (53.825783, −1.50603). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Leeds City Council appeal findings
When Leeds Green Belt proposals were inappropriate
Selected appeal 35077 gives only a conclusion on openness, not the Inspector's supporting analysis.
Counted against appeals
Why Leeds Green Belt proposals were inappropriate
Garage exceeded a limited extension
Its overall increase made it more than a limited extension and disproportionate to the original building.
Two-storey addition was disproportionate
The rear extension was judged disproportionate to the original building, so it was inappropriate Green Belt development.
Outbuilding harmed Green Belt openness
The Inspector concluded the retrospective outbuilding addition caused some harm to Green Belt openness.
Helped or needed
How Leeds proposals met Green Belt exceptions
Framework wording carried more weight
The older local policy's exceptions were less extensive, so the Inspector gave more weight to the Framework.
Exception avoided openness harm
The Inspector concluded the annexe extension met a Framework exception and caused no material harm to Green Belt openness.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal call your extension disproportionate to the original building?
- Does it identify any harm to Green Belt openness?
- Does it explain why your proposal does not meet an exception?
The selected examples range from a garage to an annexe, so may not match your proposal. 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
14 November 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the installation of a glass link-way following removal of existing conservatory and porch.
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 development on the openness of the Green Belt; and • If the development 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 necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Whilst adopted some time ago, the aims of saved Policy N33 of the UDP are broadly consistent with the approach towards development in the Green Belt as the Framework. However, the list of exceptions, including limited extensions to existing dwellings rather than buildings, are not as extensive as those within the Framework. Consequently, the UDP is not fully consistent with it, and I therefore attach more weight to the more recent wording of the Framework.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
25 March 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
two-storey extension to the southern elevation to provide 1 no. residential annexe for elderly care provision and single storey extension on eastern elevation to provide connecting corridor between annexe and host property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: (i) 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. (ii) The effect on the openness of the Green Belt. (iii) If the proposal would be 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 necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
In respect of the second and third main issues, given the development would not be inappropriate development and would meet the exception at Paragraph 149 c) of the Framework, no material harm would be caused to the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, there is also no need for me to assess whether there are any other considerations which would amount to very special circumstances.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
30 July 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the ‘construction of garage.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in respect of this 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 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 proposal.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Despite having an incidental function to a larger dwelling and the use of appropriate materials, these factors would not offset or justify a development that fails to comply with the SPD. In considering the overall increase in the size of the original building, the proposal is more than a limited extension and is clearly disproportionate to the original. The proposal would not meet the exception in Framework paragraph 154c) and UDP Policy N33. It would therefore be inappropriate development, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
4 July 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘retrospective application for outbuilding addition to existing detached dwelling & associated works’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). • The effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and • If the proposal is inappropriate development, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, there would be some harm to the openness of the Green Belt, in conflict with the Framework.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
31 May 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two storey rear extension to match existing house with hipped roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues 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 and the purposes of the Green Belt; and • Would the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude the extensions subject to this appeal would represent disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Consequently, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined by The Framework. It would also not represent a limited extension under Saved Policy N33 of the UDP or Policy HDG3 of the HDG.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2