North Warwickshire Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in North Warwickshire?
See the Green Belt harms raised locally and what helped selected allowed appeals.
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 12
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 2
- of 5 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 Warwickshire LPA (52.547549, −1.628023). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
North Warwickshire Borough Council appeal findings
Lost openness and temporary Green Belt harm
The selected examples include a temporary Gypsy-pitch case, limiting comparison with permanent proposals.
Counted against appeals
Extra built form reduced openness
Extensions reduced spatial openness
The dismissed extension decisions found that additional built form reduced Green Belt spatial openness.
Other considerations fell short
In the rear-extension appeal, other considerations did not clearly outweigh the total Green Belt harm.
Detached dwelling lost openness
The detached dwelling was judged inappropriate, caused loss of openness and conflicted with a Green Belt purpose.
Helped or needed
Contained sites and temporary harm
Contained site read as settlement
The infill site was visually and physically contained by existing development and perceived as part of the settlement.
Temporary permission limited harm
For the Gypsy pitch, temporary permission made Green Belt and character harm time-limited, reducing their weight.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify extra built form that reduces openness?
- Does it say whether the site reads as part of the settlement?
- Does it explain why other considerations do not outweigh Green Belt harm?
The cited extract for Appeal 83530 does not identify the other considerations. 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
22 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
limited infill residential development.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the site is suitable having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks to steer new development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding; • whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development, with particular regard to its relationship to the existing settlement; • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; 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 8 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
In considering compliance with paragraph 155(a) of the Framework, it is also necessary to determine whether the proposal would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. One of those purposes, namely purpose (c), is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. In this instance, I have found that the appeal site is visually and physically contained by existing development and would be perceived as part of the settlement. As such, the development would not give rise to an encroachment into the countryside and would not conflict with this purpose. Finally given the appeal site’s location, it would not undermine purpose 143(e). The development would therefore comply with criterion (a) of Para 155.
Paragraph 40 · Source page 7
29 January 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
change of use of land for a single pitch Gypsy residential site, installation of septic tank, creation of access, driveway, parking area and patio, construction of bunds and erection of gate without complying with conditions attached to planning permission [name]/2023/0191 (APP/R3705/W/24/3338275), dated 26 July 2024.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are whether the disputed conditions are reasonable and necessary with regard to: • the effect of the development on openness and on the purposes of Green Belt policy; • the effects of the development on the character and appearance of the area; • the fear of crime; and • if inappropriate, 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 necessary to justify it.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
A temporary permission would mean that the harms to the Green Belt would be time limited, as too would the additional harm to the character and appearance of the area. The time limited nature of such harms reduces the weight that they attract. As such, whilst I have found the intensification of the residential use of the pitch unacceptable on a permanent basis, I conclude that the considerations outweigh the combined harms such as to amount to very special circumstances on a temporary basis.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 5
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
10 October 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear, 2 storey side and rear extension and internal alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: a) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to development plan policies and the Framework, b) the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt, c) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, d) the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, and e) 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 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
There would however be a harmful reduction in the spatial openness of the Green Belt because of the increase in size of the dwelling, establishing development where there was previously none. In this regard, the extension would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt, thereby conflicting with the aims of including land within the Green Belt when assessed against the Framework. This harm would be in addition to the inappropriateness of the scheme.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
27 June 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appeal site is within the Green Belt and so the main issues are: • whether the extension is inappropriate development for the purposes of development plan policy and the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework); • the effect of the extension on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if the extension 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 it.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The rear extension causes harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and reduction in openness, to which I afford substantial weight. The Framework states that development should not be approved unless the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The other considerations identified above do not clearly outweigh the totality of the harm. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the front extension do not exist.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
27 October 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a new detached dwelling house and detached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
As the site is within the Green Belt 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 on the openness of the Green Belt; • the relationship to the development strategy for the area; and • whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would amount to inappropriate development as defined by the Framework, and which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. In addition, the proposal would lead to a loss of openness in the Green Belt and it would be contrary to one of the purposes of the Green Belt. I have also concluded that the proposal would be contrary to Policy NW2 of the CS and Policy LP2 of the DLP. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 25 · Source page 4