Lichfield District Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in Lichfield?
Learn how selected Lichfield appeal extracts treated extension scale, openness and a prior-approved alternative.
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 25
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 3
- 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: Lichfield LPA (52.688215, −1.804961). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Lichfield District Council appeal findings
Green Belt openness and disproportionate extensions in Lichfield
The selected examples do not reflect the outcome mix of the matched local set. The allowed extract in 74750 is conclusion-only and also mentions design.
Counted against appeals
Disproportionate extensions and Green Belt openness
A substantial addition to the original building
By footprint, floorspace, volume and visual scale, the extension was a substantial and disproportionate addition.
Keeping land permanently open still mattered
The proposal did not conflict with Green Belt purposes, but it still harmed openness and conflicted with keeping land permanently open.
Other considerations had to outweigh harm
The Inspector gave substantial weight to inappropriateness and loss of openness. Other considerations had to clearly outweigh that harm.
Helped or needed
Why the prior-approved fallback mattered
A bulkier alternative was realistic
A prior-approved, bulkier upward extension had a more-than-theoretical prospect of implementation if the appeal failed.
Fallback position outweighed Green Belt harm
The conclusion says this fallback clearly outweighed the proposal’s identified Green Belt harm and demonstrated very special circumstances.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal compare your extension with the original building by scale or volume?
- Does it explain the particular loss of Green Belt openness?
- Does it address any realistic fallback you raised?
The cited Lichfield cases involve extensions of different scale and form, so their site facts may not match yours. 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
14 August 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
Extension and alteration of dwelling to create first floor accommodation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are, firstly, whether the proposed development (the Proposal) would be inappropriate development in the West Midlands Green Belt, and, if so, whether other considerations exist that clearly outweigh the totality of harms, including non-Green Belt harms, that have been identified.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
It is not disputed that the Proposal intends alterations and extension of a dwelling which are disproportionate in size. I have concluded that the Proposal would fail to protect openness and would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. However, the fallback position which exists as a result of the grant of prior approval 3 Ref: 24/00977/PNHF 4 In the context of the development patter of the adjacent settlement. 5 which is in the adjacent District of [name] for a much bulkier upward extension6 of the building would have both a more-than-theoretical prospect of implementation if this appeal fails and also a significantly greater detrimental impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. This is a consideration7 which clearly outweighs the identified harm to the Green Belt of the appealed Proposal and, by the significant weight which harm to openness should attract, sufficient to demonstrate that very special circumstances exist as set out in the Framework. I have also considered the suggested conflicts with policies CP3 of the [name] and Policy BE1 of the Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy and with the Lichfield District Design Codes but in all respects my reasoning on the first main matter is similarly material to the appearance and design as referred to in these policies. I conclude that any conflict with those policies would be of neutral effect in the overall planning balance if suitably-worded conditions are applied.
Paragraph 10 · Source pages 3, 4
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
5 July 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
rear extension to provide first floor accommodation.
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 of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if the proposal would be inappropriate development, 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 it.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
It has been found that the proposal would be inappropriate development which would harm openness. While the proposal would not conflict with the purposes the Green Belt serves, it nonetheless would conflict with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy which is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and not to undermine the essential characteristics of Green Belts which are their openness and their permanence.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 3
31 January 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a first floor front, side and rear extension, raising of roof height, dormer windows to front and rear and cladding at first floor (front, rear and side), installation of new windows to rear and increase in chimney height.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The site lies within the Green Belt. Therefore, the main issues are: • Whether the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • The effect on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it; • If the development is inappropriate, 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 it.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would cause harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and loss of openness, to which I afford substantial weight in accordance with the Framework, which adds that development should not be approved unless the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 28 · Source page 6
8 August 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a two-storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appeal site is within the Green Belt. Accordingly, I consider that the main issues are: • Whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development within 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 proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host building and the area; and • If the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether or not 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 necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I consider that, whether taken in terms of footprint, floorspace or volume, or its visual impact on the scale of the dwelling, the extension represents a substantial and disproportionate addition over and above the original building. Consequently, it does not fall within the exception described in Paragraph 149(c) of the Framework, and is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. By definition, it is therefore harmful to the Green Belt, and this is a matter to which I afford substantial weight in the planning balance as required by Paragraph 148 of the Framework.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3