Mole Valley District Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt inappropriateness in Mole Valley?
See the selected examples’ Green Belt concerns and the tests they recorded.
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 102
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 21
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 23
- 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: Mole Valley LPA (51.212314, −0.325092). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Mole Valley District Council appeal findings
Green Belt harm, openness and exceptions
The selected allowed extracts give only a conclusion or part of the assessment, not how site facts were applied.
Counted against appeals
How Green Belt harm counted against proposals
Openness was given substantial weight
For the detached garage, the Inspector found inappropriate development and harm to openness, giving those harms substantial weight.
Need and sustainability carried limited weight
The appellant’s need and sustainability benefits carried limited weight. Lack of harm to character, biodiversity, heritage, amenity, access and landscaping was neutral.
A clear outweighing was required
Another dismissal states that very special circumstances require other considerations to clearly outweigh Green Belt and other harm.
Helped or needed
What was tested against Green Belt exceptions
A pool house was not inappropriate
The selected extract concludes that the ancillary pool house was not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, without setting out its reasoning.
Alterations were assessed qualitatively
The supplied extract lists design, bulk, mass, floorspace, scale and openness when assessing whether an existing-building alteration was disproportionate.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice identify added bulk, mass, floorspace or lost openness?
- Does the notice explain why claimed benefits outweigh Green Belt harm?
- Does the refusal notice assess an existing-building alteration as disproportionate?
Appeals 82857 and 77071 also raised other issues, so this review uses their Green Belt extracts. 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
6 March 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a single storey pool house for ancillary use.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is 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.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The proposed development would therefore accord with the relevant provisions of paragraph 154 of the Framework, which in summary seeks to limit development in the Green Belt, subject to certain exceptions.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
3 February 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as the construction of a glazed roof over the existing fives court and link to the aviary to provide a recreational/exercise space.
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 and the effect on openness; 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 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Policy EN1 of the MVLP is broadly consistent with the approach of the Framework in that inappropriate development will not be permitted in the Green Belt, subject to exceptions. These include 3.a. the extension or alteration of an existing building, including ancillary buildings providing the development does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The supporting text of Policy EN1 provides guidance for assessing disproportionate additions, stating the Council will adopt a qualitative approach. Each proposal would be assessed on its own merits, taking into account the design, bulk, mass and floorspace of a proposal and their impact on the scale of the building, in addition to impact on openness, which are all considerations in the qualitative
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
16 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of detached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’); • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and local area; and • If the development would be inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way 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 it.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and harms its openness, to which I must attribute substantial weight against the development. Balanced against that are the other considerations identified above. I cannot attach any substantial weight to the LDC scheme as a fallback position. The appellant’s need for the proposed development and the sustainability benefits attract only limited weight, the lack of harm to character and appearance, biodiversity, heritage assets, residential amenity, access arrangements and landscaping are neutral factors in the planning balance. I conclude that the other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and therefore there are no very special circumstances to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 24 · Source page 4
8 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to change of use of a manege training area from private use to commercial use with on site car parking.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: the effect of the proposal on highway safety; whether the 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 proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Paragraph 154 identifies the five purposes that Green Belts serve. The proposal would not conflict with checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas since it is not located close to such an area. It would not conflict with the aim of preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another since the nearest town is some distance away. It would not encroach into the countryside since the manege already exists. It would not conflict with the purpose of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns since the site does not form part of the setting of such a town. Finally, the proposal would not conflict with urban regeneration as it would not recycle derelict or other urban land. The facility would not therefore conflict with any of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
29 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a two-storey linked detached building.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) and relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the appeal proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling; 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 appeal proposal.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that when considering any planning application, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 24 · Source page 4