North Hertfordshire District Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt development in North Hertfordshire?
See how the selected local examples treated open land, oversized additions and unmet need.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 7 of 34
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 4
- of 7 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 Hertfordshire LPA (51.959114, −0.192492). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
North Hertfordshire District Council appeal findings
North Hertfordshire Green Belt harm in selected examples
The selected examples are more dismissal-heavy than the matched local set; the allowed caravan-site extract does not explain why that appeal was allowed.
Counted against appeals
Open land, additions and Green Belt harm
Open land could be seen or occupied
A shed was visible from an access road, while a screened conservatory still occupied space free from buildings.
Additions exceeded the original building
The Inspector found the extensions disproportionate to the original building, making them inappropriate Green Belt development.
Green Belt harm was not outweighed
For a two-storey side extension, other considerations did not clearly outweigh harm from inappropriateness and loss of openness.
Helped or needed
Allowed extract: no unmet need shown
It explains inappropriateness only
The extract concludes the caravan-site proposal was inappropriate Green Belt development. It does not state what supported the allowed outcome.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify open land affected by the proposal?
- Are your additions disproportionate to the original building?
- Does the refusal explain why other considerations do not outweigh Green Belt harm?
The allowed extract concerns a caravan site and omits the factor behind its allowed outcome. 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
4 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the change of use of land for residential caravan site for 8 gypsy families including hardstanding and existing lights.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt having regard to any relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”). • The effect of the development on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt. • Whether the future occupants of the appeal site would be within a reasonable distance of local services and facilities.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, there is no demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed in this appeal and it follows that the appeal development would not meet the terms of Framework paragraph 155.b. I therefore conclude on this main issue that the appeal development would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt under the Framework and the PPTS. I need not consider the appeal development against Framework paragraph 155.c. as it would not alter that
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
13 July 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the “installation of 16 sq. m timber shed for the purpose of storing equipment to maintain the grounds”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this 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, 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 very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal has resulted in the development of an area that was previously open and a loss of openness, albeit this is reasonably limited given the size of the development. The shed is visible from the access road that runs adjacent to the field that the shed is positioned within. The loss of openness would therefore be evident to passers-by. On this basis, I conclude that the proposal would result in some harm to the openness of the Green Belt and thereby conflict with the advice in the Framework. Although this is a minor effect any harm to the Green Belt must be given substantial weight in the final balance.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
14 February 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a proposed single storey side extension to provide an oak framed conservatory.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the determination of the appeal are: i) Whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the 'Framework') and development plan policy; ii) The effect on the openness of the Green Belt; iii) The effect on the character and appearance of the area, including [name] historic park and garden; iv) If the proposal does amount to inappropriate development within the Green Belt, whether the harm by way of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations such as to amount to the very special circumstances needed to justify the development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As set out above, openness is a key characteristic of the Green Belt. Assessment of the effect on openness has both a visual and spatial dimension. In visual terms, the proposal would be well-screened by mature boundary hedges and neighbouring residential development and would not be overly prominent in the wider landscape. Spatially, it would extend into space that is currently free from built development and would elongate the dwelling as described above. That would have some impact on the openness of the Green Belt in a physical sense, albeit that the effect would be limited and localised. Nonetheless, any harm to the openness of the Green Belt runs contrary to the aims of established planning policy and that is a matter that weighs against the development.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 3
27 November 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the removal of existing conservatory; new single storey extension with roof terrace; first floor rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues 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 find that the proposal would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Therefore, the proposal would be inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policy SP5 of the LP and the Framework, which seek to protect the Green Belt from harm.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
23 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: firstly, whether the proposed development would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 2024, and any relevant development plan policies; secondly, the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and thirdly, if the proposed development would amount to inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations, such as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, it is concluded on the third main issue that, in the final balance, the other considerations would not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt through inappropriateness and loss of openness. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The proposed development would therefore conflict with LP Policy SP5 and with national policy set out in the NPPF, 2024.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3