Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt changes in Rotherham Metropolitan?
See why selected Green Belt proposals failed and which limited physical changes helped an allowed dwelling alteration.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 15 of 81
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 13
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 14
- of 15 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: Rotherham LPA (53.408675, −1.286258). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council appeal findings
Rotherham Green Belt exceptions and spatial openness
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. The container example also raises other issues beyond Green Belt inappropriateness.
Counted against appeals
Why Green Belt proposals were dismissed
Added scale reduced spatial openness
At a cul-de-sac dwelling, significant added scale and massing caused a harmful loss of spatial openness, although it was not visible from public areas.
No exception applied to containers
The Inspector concluded the container proposal did not fit the listed Green Belt exceptions and was inappropriate development.
Submitted considerations did not outweigh harm
The conclusion says the considerations put forward did not clearly outweigh harm from inappropriateness and reduced openness.
Helped or needed
What helped a Green Belt alteration
Existing building set the baseline
The Inspector assessed the existing dwelling, not the original building, when applying the openness test.
Footprint and roof changes stayed small
The footprint increase was almost insignificant, and the overall roof and eaves heights would not materially change.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a Green Belt exception your proposal is said not to meet?
- Would your changes add scale or mass that reduces spatial openness?
- What existing footprint, roof and eaves dimensions can you show?
The container extract states only its Green Belt conclusion, not the analysis that preceded it. 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
1 example
30 September 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
alterations to dwelling.
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 test with regard to paragraph 154g is whether the proposal would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. This does not relate to the original building but the existing situation. In this case, the increase in the footprint of development would be almost insignificant. The overall roof height and the existing eaves heights would not be materially changed. The original roof would have a hip to gable alteration which is a change that does not always require permission. This would however increase the volume as would the increase in height of the lower areas of existing pitched roofs which would be extended to match the original overall height of the roof.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
7 December 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
raising the roof to create a two storey dwelling with a first floor rear extension, the insertion of dormer windows into the front and rear elevations, the demolition of existing rear conservatory and erection of single storey rear and side 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 policy; • the effect on the openness and the purposes of the Green Belt; and • if the proposal is inappropriate, 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 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
With respect to the purposes of Green Belt, the development would be contained within the boundaries of the residential property and therefore would not lead to encroachment into the countryside. Nor would it represent sprawl or urbanisation and I find no conflict with the purposes of Green Belt.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
9 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
two storey side extension, with demolition of existing garage.
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 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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Due to the position of the appeal site at the end of a cul-de-sac some distance away from the A57, the proposal would not be prominent in views from the public domain. It would not, therefore, harm the visual openness of the Green Belt. However, the proposal would result in a significant increase in the scale and massing of the dwelling and, for this reason, would result in a harmful loss of the spatial openness of the Green Belt. Such loss would amount to moderate harm to the Green Belt.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
5 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
[address] on [address] - Be the [name] farm in Rotherham - 2 metal containers.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: - • whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area; • potential risks to the proposal arising from past mining activity; • the effect of the proposal on highway and pedestrian safety; 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 development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I conclude the proposal does not fall within the scope of the exceptions listed in paragraphs 154 or 155 of the Framework and therefore represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would be at odds with Local Plan Core Strategy Policy CS 4 and Policy SP 2 of Local Plan Sites and Policies and the Framework in this regard.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
30 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a glazed pergola.
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
I have had regard to the considerations put forward but do not find that they would clearly outweigh the harm from inappropriateness and the more limited harm from the reduction in openness. The considerations do not therefore represent the very special circumstances that are necessary to justify the development. Although there is some support for the quality and position of the proposal, it would be contrary to the policies of the development plan overall and the specific policies of the Framework, relating to the Green Belt, that indicate that the development should not be approved. I therefore dismiss the appeal.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4