Reigate and Banstead Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in Reigate and Banstead?
See local appeal evidence on Green Belt development and facts to check in your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 13 of 116
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 13
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 11
- of 13 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: Reigate and Banstead LPA (51.25324, −0.191844). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Reigate and Banstead Borough Council appeal findings
Why Green Belt proposals were dismissed
The matched local set has no allowed appeal, so the selected examples only show dismissed reasoning.
Counted against appeals
What counted against Green Belt proposals
Nine flats meant more activity
The Inspector found that extra parking and domestic activity from nine flats would significantly increase site activity and harm Green Belt openness.
Earlier enlargements increased overall bulk
The side extension and dormer were subordinate, but previous enlargements made the dwelling’s overall scale, bulk and mass much larger.
Other considerations carried little weight
The conclusion was that other considerations carried little or limited weight against Green Belt harm.
No allowed example matched
No allowed local example
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Include all earlier enlargements
The Inspector assessed the new side extension and dormer together with previous enlargements.
Address activity as well as size
The flats example separated building size from increased site activity associated with parking and domestic paraphernalia.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal compare your proposal with the original building and all earlier enlargements?
- Could parking or domestic activity add harm beyond the building’s size?
- What other considerations does the refusal say do not outweigh Green Belt harm?
The selected examples cover flats, extensions and a garage roof, so their facts may differ from yours. 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
20 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
up to 9no. residential flats.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues on this appeal 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; • if inappropriate, the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if inappropriate, 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 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
If implemented, the extensions to the house would result in a building with a significantly greater volume and height, whilst the volume of the flats would be moderately increased. Careful design and an emphasis on smaller flats could therefore result in a building or buildings for up to nine flats not being materially larger than the existing buildings as extended/replaced. However, activity levels associated with car parking and domestic paraphernalia for an enlarged house and flats from would not differ materially from the current situation, whereas up to nine flats would significantly increase levels of activity at the site, with resultant harm to the openness of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 4
23 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “new entrance drive and access to existing road, erection of single storey side extension, alteration to side elevation dormer, remodelling of existing garage and addition of car port and landscaping works to front and rear garden to include swimming pool”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in 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 • 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Notwithstanding the volume calculations, whilst I agree that the scale of the proposed side extension and alterations to the dormer would be subordinate to the dwelling as it exists today, when coupled with the previous enlargements the increase in the size of the original building would be significant. The overall scale, bulk and mass of the dwelling would be much larger and I conclude therefore that the proposed uplift represents a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. It would be contrary to CS Policy CS3, LP Policy NHE5 and the Framework. The proposed extension would therefore be inappropriate development. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
12 July 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
replacement of the existing garage flat roof with a hipped, tiled roof and new weatherboard cladding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues raised in respect of this appeal are: - a) 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; b) The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and c) Whether harm by reason of inappropriateness would be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would those amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal?
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, I have identified that the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined by the Framework and would conflict with Policy CS3 of the [name] and Policy NHE5 of the Development Plan. Furthermore, the proposal would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt as required by the Framework. The proposed development would by definition, be harmful to the Green Belt, harm which the Framework indicates should be given substantial weight. In contrast, the other considerations carry little or limited weight.
Paragraph 16 · Source pages 3, 4
17 February 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two-storey extension and alterations following demolition of existing single storey extension.
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 development 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
Accordingly, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 148 of The Framework instructs that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, and 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.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
17 February 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey side and rear extension.
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 policies. • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. • 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 Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. Paragraph 148 of the Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. I have found harm to the Green Belt by reason of the proposed development’s inappropriateness and effect on openness. These issues are not outweighed by the considerations advanced by the appellant. Therefore, the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3