Ribble Valley Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt inappropriateness in Ribble Valley?
See which local examples found Green Belt development inappropriate, and what the allowed extensions had to show.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 7 of 62
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 6
- of 7 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: Ribble Valley LPA (53.907299, −2.444694). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Ribble Valley Borough Council appeal findings
Ribble Valley's Green Belt exception tests
The selected examples include fewer dismissed appeals than the matched local set; one change-of-use case also includes rural-character harm at this issue's edge.
Counted against appeals
Why Green Belt exceptions failed
Previously developed land exception did not apply
The two-storey extension was neither limited infilling nor redevelopment, so it had to be assessed as an extension.
Openness and rural character harm
The change-of-use proposal was judged inappropriate, with harm to openness and to the locality's rural character and appearance.
Local-plan conflict was not decisive
The extension had no direct conflict with the cited local policy, but was still found inappropriate under the Framework.
Helped or needed
How Ribble Valley extensions met Green Belt exceptions
No disproportionate addition
The side conservatory was not disproportionate over the original building, so it was not inappropriate despite minimal openness harm.
The rear infill met an exception
The Inspector concluded the rear infill extension met the Green Belt exception and was not inappropriate.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal compare your extension with the original building?
- Does the refusal explain why your scheme misses the relevant Green Belt exception?
- Does it identify harm to openness or the rural character of the area?
The rear-infill extract gives only a conclusion, not the facts supporting its exception. 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
12 January 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
conservatory to side (southeast) elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, with due regard to the openness of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The proposal would conflict with [name] EN1 of the [name] in that it does not fall within one of the stated forms of development and would also lead to some harm to openness, albeit to a minimal degree. However, the proposal would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, and would therefore not be inappropriate development in the Green belt within the terms of paragraph 154(c) of the Framework. On that basis, there are material considerations that indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
14 January 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear (infill) extension and alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework and development plan policy; • The effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and • If the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, 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 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposal would meet the exception in Framework paragraph 154(c). As the scheme would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, it would not conflict with [name] EN1 of the CS, which seeks to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. It would accord with the aims of Section 13 of the Framework concerning Green Belts.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
9 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the ‘demolition of existing single storey porch/ bedroom/ utility, car port, conservatory and detached garage. Construction of two-storey side extension, single storey rear extension and new front porch. Replacement windows and doors, alterations and resurfacing of driveway and installation of solar panels and render finish to SE side elevation.
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
The LPA cites conflict with [name] EN1 of the [name] 2008-2028, a Local Plan for Ribble Valley (adopted in 2014). This policy seeks to maintain the overall extent of the Green Belt to safeguard the surrounding countryside from inappropriate encroachment and states that the development of new buildings will be limited to certain types that preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of the designation. In this case, the development does not result in a new building, and there would be no encroachment into the countryside. Therefore, I find no direct conflict with [name] EN1. Nevertheless, this does alter the fact that the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, when assessed against the policies of the Framework.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
9 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Proposed change of use of land to residential with access track (60m long), gate (2m high) and boundary treatments (1.2m high fences and 1m high stone wall), bin store and parking area to the rear.
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; • The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; • Whether biodiversity net gain (BNG) objectives would be met; and • If the development does amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether the harm to the Green Belt 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 development.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. In accordance with the Framework, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, as I found above. There is additional harm to the rural character and appearance of the locality. ‘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 26 · Source page 5
14 April 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
ground and first floor extension to accommodate foster children.
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 and relevant development plan policies and its effect on openness; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the original dwelling; • the effect of the proposal on bats and other wildlife habitats; and • whether any 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 proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appellant refers to the appeal site as being previously developed and therefore falls under the exception cited in paragraph 154 sub-section g) of the Framework. This relates to limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would not be limited infilling nor the partial or complete redevelopment of the appeal site. This exception does not apply to the proposed two storey extension which clearly falls to be assessed under sub-section c) as referred to above. I note the [name] referred to but this is not applicable in this case.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2