Rochford District Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt inappropriateness in Rochford?
See the selected Rochford decisions’ Green Belt findings and questions to test against 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
- 20 of 60
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 13
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 18
- of 20 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: Rochford LPA (51.591327, 0.809245). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Rochford District Council appeal findings
Rochford Green Belt findings on bulk and proportion
The selected examples have more allowed decisions than the matched local set overall, so dismissed reasoning is less fully represented.
Counted against appeals
Bulk and Green Belt harm
Extra bulk caused spatial harm
Although it was not readily visible, extra first-floor bulk was found to cause spatial harm to the Green Belt.
Harm needed clear counterweight
The extract concludes that other considerations had to clearly outweigh Green Belt harm before the proposal could be approved.
Helped or needed
When extensions were not inappropriate
Not disproportionate to original building
The conservatory was not disproportionate to the original building, so it was not treated as inappropriate or harmful to openness.
No further Green Belt tests
The front extension was found not inappropriate, so the extract says an openness assessment and very special circumstances were unnecessary.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal explain why your extension is disproportionate to the original building?
- Would added bulk cause spatial harm even if the site is barely visible?
- What other considerations does the refusal say could clearly outweigh Green Belt harm?
The selected examples concern extensions and a games-room scheme, not every Green Belt proposal in Rochford. 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
3 examples
17 January 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
‘remove existing metal framed canopy and erect new conservatory’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I find the development proposed would not amount to extensions or alterations that would be disproportionate to the original building and I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It therefore follows that the effect on openness is not harmful. The proposed development complies with policy DM17 of the Development Management Plan 2014 which seeks to ensure that extensions to dwellings are proportionate, and GB1 of the [name] 2011 which in summary seeks to protect the Green Belt. The proposal also complies with the Framework.
Paragraph 12 · Source pages 2, 3
1 July 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
side extension to bungalow in the same style as existing to create more appropriate double frontage to 'road facing' side.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt;
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Furthermore, the proposed roof form with the original ridge height being maintained and use of matching materials, which could be secured by condition, would be in keeping with the host dwelling. As a consequence, the extension would not be overly prominent and would not unbalance or overwhelm the original dwelling as a whole. As a result it avoids impact on the character and appearance of the Green Belt and therefore complies with Policy DM17 of the DMP in this regard.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
27 January 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey and part first floor front extension with pitched roof over.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of development plan policy and the Framework; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if it is inappropriate, 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 necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Where a proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, it should not be regarded as being harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. As the proposed development is not inappropriate development, as per Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework, an assessment on the effect of the proposals on the openness is not required. Likewise, very special circumstances do not need to be demonstrated in order for the proposals to be considered acceptable in Green Belt terms. Consequently, the proposal would accord with Policy DM17 of the DMP as set out above and the Framework, which seeks to protect the Green Belt from harm.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
10 June 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “add first floor over top of extg single storey to east side of property to form additional bedroom and en-suite and infill the small, rebated area on the south side between lounge and dining room to form an extended lounge space. Upgrade extg dilapidated black shiplap timber cladding with an insulated render to the overall building to provide a warmer family environment”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and development plan policy, • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, and • if 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 very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I acknowledge that the appeal site is not readily visible from public views. However, even accounting for the lack of visual harm, the development would increase the overall bulk of the dwelling, resulting in spatial harm to the Green Belt. The Framework is very clear at paragraph 148 that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, and development should not be approved unless the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
1 September 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Refurbishment and extension to existing games room to rear garden of ‘ [site address] ’’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether or not 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 appeal proposal on the openness and the purposes of 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 required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Paragraph 147 of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The Framework goes on to indicate, at paragraph 148, that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and very special circumstances will not exist unless that harm, and any other harm, are clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 19 · Source pages 3, 4