North Yorkshire Council appeal evidence
Refused for inappropriate Green Belt development in North Yorkshire?
See what the selected examples say about Green Belt harm, openness and supporting considerations.
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 107
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 9
- 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 Yorkshire LPA (54.133745, −1.351605). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
North Yorkshire Council appeal findings
Green Belt harm and special circumstances
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. One allowed extract addresses openness rather than inappropriateness.
Counted against appeals
Inspector concerns in Green Belt refusals
Supporting claims fell short
The Inspectors found the stated considerations did not clearly outweigh harm from inappropriate development, so no very special circumstances were established.
Openness harm added weight
The outbuilding proposal was found inappropriate and harmful to Green Belt openness, adding a separate harm.
No objections did not outweigh harm
For the two-storey extension, lack of local objections did not outweigh inappropriate development or establish very special circumstances.
Helped or needed
What reduced Green Belt openness harm
No increase in garage bulk
The allowed garage conversion kept its height, width, depth and volume unchanged. The Inspector found no substantial Green Belt openness harm.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify inappropriate development, openness, or both?
- Which supporting considerations does it say failed to outweigh Green Belt harm?
- Does the refusal link changed height, width, depth or volume to Green Belt harm?
The other allowed extract gives only a conclusion, not its supporting analysis. 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
17 June 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension, extending 5.8M to the rear, 3.9M to the ridge, 3M to eaves.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) 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; ii) The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; iii) 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
Therefore, the proposal would not meet the exception in Framework paragraph 154c). It would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt in conflict with the policies in the Framework that protect the Green Belt.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
20 November 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
conversion of existing garage into residential annexe.
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 relevant development plan policies, including an assessment of 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
The Council has not raised concern in relation to openness. The proposal would not alter the height, width, depth or volume of the existing building. Consequently, and considering the visual and spatial aspects of the openness of the Green Belt, the proposal would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
13 May 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a domestic outbuilding and demolition of dutch barn.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework and development plan policy; • The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt and • In the event that 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 the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have concluded that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, by definition, harmful. It would also harm openness. Substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. I have considered the other considerations set out above but, taken together, they would not clearly outweigh the harms to the Green Belt. As such, the very special circumstances necessary to warrant the development do not exist.
Paragraph 24 · Source page 4
9 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
raising roof level and matching dormer window on the old garage building (previously converted into habitable room) to create an en-suite accessed via first floor bedroom.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are whether the proposal would amount to inappropriate development within the Green Belt; whether there would be any other harm to 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 necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Framework is clear that 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. Although there would be very limited other harm, there would be harm from inappropriateness. The considerations put forward in support of the extension do not clearly outweigh the harm from inappropriateness. The considerations do not therefore represent the very special circumstances that are necessary to justify the development. The proposal would therefore conflict with the Framework and policy SP3. I therefore dismiss the appeal.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
29 January 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two storey rear extension and internal alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are whether the proposal would amount to inappropriate development within the Green Belt; whether there would be any other harm to the Green Belt; the effect on the character and appearance of the area; whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the setting of the listed public house; 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 necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The works would represent inappropriate development. I have had regard to the considerations put forward, including the lack of objections locally. However, these would not clearly outweigh the harm from inappropriateness. The considerations put forward do not therefore represent the very special circumstances that would be necessary to justify the development. It would therefore be contrary to the Green Belt policies of the CS and the specific policies of the Framework, relating to the Green Belt, that indicate that the development should not be approved. I also find conflict with the design polices of the CS and Framework. I therefore dismiss the appeal.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3