North Somerset Council appeal evidence
Refused for Green Belt development in North Somerset?
Learn why the selected examples were dismissed and what their evidence did not show about Green Belt harm.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 9 of 55
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 8
- of 9 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 Somerset LPA (51.389162, −2.800799). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
North Somerset Council appeal findings
Why North Somerset Green Belt proposals stayed inappropriate
The matched local set has no allowed appeal, so the selected examples show only dismissed reasoning.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt harm not outweighed
Front extension reduced openness
A two-storey front extension was judged inappropriate and found to reduce openness. The other considerations did not clearly outweigh that harm.
Workshop factors did not outweigh harm
For a workshop building, the other considerations put forward did not clearly outweigh inappropriateness, loss of openness and other harm.
House extension had openness impact
A single-storey house extension involved harm from inappropriate development and a modest impact on openness.
No allowed example matched
No allowed local example
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Extension factors had to outweigh Green Belt harm
For the single-storey extension, other considerations had to clearly outweigh inappropriate development and the effect on openness.
Front extension lacked very special circumstances
For the front extension, the other considerations did not establish the very special circumstances needed to justify it.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say your proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt?
- What evidence addresses any loss of openness from your proposed building or extension?
- Which other considerations could clearly outweigh the stated Green Belt harm?
The selected examples include extensions, garages and a workshop, rather than one repeated proposal type. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Read the reasoning in matched appeal decisions
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.
Dismissed appeal examples
5 examples
18 August 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a ‘proposed two storey front extension’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appeal site is located within an area of Green Belt. Accordingly, the main issues are: • Whether the proposed development 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 proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; 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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would reduce openness in this location. The Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Even when taken together, I conclude that the other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm in this case. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The proposal is therefore contrary to SSPP Policy DM12 and guidance contained in the Framework relating to Green Belts.
Paragraph 14 · Source pages 2, 3
2 February 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of 1.1/2 storey detached triple garage with office area above.
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 policy; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would be inappropriate development which would be harmful to the Green Belt. The proposal would conflict with PP Policy DM12 which, amongst other things, seeks to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. There would also be conflict with the provisions of the Framework in this regard. This is a matter to which I attach substantial weight.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
4 November 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a double garage with a hobby room over.
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 proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; 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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appeal site lies within the Green Belt (GB). The Framework at para 142 identifies that the fundamental aim of GB Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It goes on to state at para 152 that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the GB and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The Framework establishes that the construction of new buildings in the GB should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions as set out in para 154. Para 154 c) of the Framework allows for the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
20 September 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a new single storey extension to existing house.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: a) Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised Framework and any relevant development plan policies. b) The effect on the openness of the Green Belt. c) 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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Framework makes clear at paragraph 143 that inappropriate development in the Green Belt is, by definition, harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. This is a high bar. I have found that there would be harm from inappropriate development together with a modest impact on openness. Substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
8 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the removal of 2no. existing storage containers and proposed erection of a single storey purpose built storage/workshop building.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are as follows: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework, relevant development plan policies, and the proposal’s effect on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area; and • Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have had regard to the other considerations put forward. The considerations in this case would not clearly outweigh the harm from inappropriateness, the loss of openness and the other harm. Accordingly, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist and the proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan and the Framework relating to the Green Belt. I therefore dismiss the appeal.
Paragraph 16 · Source pages 3, 4