North East Derbyshire District Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt inappropriateness in North East Derbyshire?
Learn the cited Green Belt concerns and the limits of the allowed porch conclusion.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 12 of 33
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 9
- of 12 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: North East Derbyshire LPA (53.221514, −1.437207). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
North East Derbyshire District Council appeal findings
Why extensions and hardstanding harmed Green Belt openness
The allowed extract is conclusion-only, so it does not show which features helped. The displayed examples have a higher allowed share than the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt harm from extensions and hardstanding
Limited adverse effect on openness
A two-storey front extension was found inappropriate development with a limited adverse effect on Green Belt openness.
Other considerations fell short
For a rear orangery, other considerations did not outweigh Green Belt harm, leaving insufficient very special circumstances.
Tracks and hardstanding harmed openness
The access track and hardstanding, with highly visible vehicle movements, were found to have an intense visual impact on Green Belt openness.
Helped or needed
Allowed porch: no Green Belt conflict
Conclusion without supporting reasons
For the single-storey glazed porch, the Inspector concluded there was no Green Belt policy conflict or harm to character and appearance. The extract does not explain why.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal call the proposal inappropriate development in the Green Belt?
- Which features does it say reduce openness: size, hardstanding, access or vehicle movements?
- What other considerations does it say fail to outweigh the Green Belt harm?
The agricultural-building example includes access and vehicle impacts, so it is less comparable with a home extension. 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
27 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey glazed porch to the front of the property..
Issue identified by the Inspector
Based on the Council’s reasons for refusing permission, and the other submissions made, the main issues in the appeal are: ▪ whether the proposed scheme would constitute ‘inappropriate development’ in terms of Green Belt policy; ▪ and the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As set out above, I have found that the proposed development would not conflict with green belt policy, nor would it cause harm to the character or appearance of the area. The scheme would therefore accord with the relevant policies of the
Paragraph 17 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
28 November 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
two storey front extension including new basement area with alterations to fenestration.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are :- • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of Development Plan policy and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if it is inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt 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 development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have identified that the scheme would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and the presumption against inappropriate development means that this harm alone attracts substantial weight. The development would also have a limited adverse effect on the openness of the Green Belt. The development would therefore conflict with the essential characteristics of the Green Belt as set out in the Framework.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
24 April 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
rear orangery.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are:- • Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and, • if the proposal is 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 the development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I consider that the development would cause harm to the Green Belt by way of its inappropriateness and harm to its openness, and substantial weight should be given to these harms. The weight attributed to the other considerations in this case do not outweigh the substantial harm I have identified. I conclude therefore there are insufficient very special circumstances to justify the development.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 3
29 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as: ‘Erection of a garden building’.
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 the development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal upon 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm openness. The Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 3
15 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “[name] of an Agricultural Building for grain storage with access and track”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: - Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; - The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and landscape; - The effect of the proposal on highway safety with regards to access; - The effect of the proposal on trees; and - Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this amount to very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Visual impacts also form part of the concept of openness of the Green Belt. The access track and hardstanding area would be a combination of compacted stone and tarmac, and this would be visually different from the existing field. The site is directly adjacent to a highway, and even with landscape screening, the access track and the hardstanding area, given its proposed materials, would be visibly prominent within the surrounding area. The access track and hardstanding area would also introduce vehicle movements to and from the proposed agricultural building and possibly the storage of vehicles or other agricultural items on the hardstanding area. It is noted that there is an existing building on the site which may have vehicles coming and going from it, however, these would be less noticeable given the size of the existing building and location of the existing access to this building. Due to the size and length of the proposed access and hardstanding area, access to the site would be more formalised and vehicle movements to and from the proposed building would be highly visible. The access track and hardstanding area would therefore have an intense visual impact on the openness of the site and the Green Belt.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2