Northumberland County Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt inappropriateness in Northumberland?
See why selected inspectors found proposals inappropriate, harmed openness, or met a Green Belt exception.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 18 of 109
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 14
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 16
- of 18 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: Northumberland LPA (55.232472, −2.023078). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Northumberland County Council appeal findings
When Green Belt exceptions and openness were not made out
The selected examples include both outcomes, but most extracts state conclusions rather than the detailed assessment behind them.
Counted against appeals
Why selected Green Belt appeals were dismissed
No Framework exception was found
The self-build dwelling was found not to fall within the cited Framework exceptions and was therefore inappropriate Green Belt development.
Additional bulk reduced openness
A two-storey extension was found to reduce openness through its extra built bulk, even though the loss was described as minimal.
Other matters did not outweigh harm
For the rear extension, the Inspector concluded that the other matters presented did not clearly outweigh the identified harm.
Helped or needed
What helped selected Green Belt appeals
Not disproportionate to the original building
The detached garage was allowed because it was not a disproportionate addition over the original building.
Cited exception applied to glazed link
The Inspector concluded that the glazed link complied with the cited exception. No very special circumstances case was required.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal notice say the proposal falls outside a Green Belt exception?
- Does your refusal notice identify added bulk or lost openness?
- Which other considerations does it say must clearly outweigh Green Belt harm?
Several selected Northumberland extracts give conclusions without the earlier Green Belt assessment. 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
27 January 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey detached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues of the appeal 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 necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, the proposed development would not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. The proposed development would not therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and thus would accord with paragraph 154 c) of the Framework. For the same reasons, the proposed development would also accord with [name] 1, STP 7 and STP 8 of the NLP.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
29 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a glazed oak-frame link between utility and garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are whether or not the proposed development is inappropriate in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; and the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the appeal property.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
To conclude, the proposal would comply with Framework paragraph 154 c) and NLP policies ST7 and ST8. It would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and it follows that the proposal would not be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt or to the purposes of including land within it. A case for very special circumstances is not therefore required.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
15 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Development of a self-build residential dwelling house; all matters reserved other than access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • whether or not the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the development plan policies; 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
For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would not benefit from any of the exceptions in paragraphs 154 or 155 of the Framework. Therefore, it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as defined in the Framework. I have also found that it would result in substantial harm to openness. As the proposal would fail to protect the Green Belt and would constitute inappropriate development, it would also conflict with [name] 7 and STP 8 of the Northumberland Local Plan (2022) (the NLP).
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
22 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of existing ground floor rear extension and replacement with two storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether or not the appeal proposal would constitute inappropriate development in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • the implications on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to size and scale; and • should the appeal proposal constitute inappropriate development, 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 it.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Paragraph 148 of the Framework states that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Having taken into account all other considerations presented to me, the totality of the harm identified is not clearly outweighed by these matters. Therefore, I do not find that the very special circumstances required to justify this development within the Green Belt have been demonstrated.
Paragraph 25 · Source page 4
6 July 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a two storey extension protruding from western side to provide 2no. additional bedrooms, dining area and gym.
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 Framework and any relevant development plan policies. ii. The effect on the openness of the Green Belt. iii. Would the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, 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
In that the bulk of the building would be increased by additional built development, the proposal would reduce the openness of the Green Belt and while the loss of openness would be minimal, the Framework nonetheless indicates that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Thus, the appeal scheme would harm the openness of the Green Belt contrary to guidance set out in the Framework.
Paragraph 15 · Source pages 2, 3