Rugby Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused for an inappropriate Green Belt proposal in Rugby?
Learn how the selected examples treated Green Belt openness, larger buildings and other claimed support.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 10 of 37
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 10
- of 10 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: Rugby LPA (52.384453, −1.328334). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Rugby Borough Council appeal findings
Rugby Green Belt cases: bulk, openness and reuse
The selected allowed example sits at the edge of this issue because it also covers access and neighbour privacy. Its extract gives the Council’s concern, not the Inspector’s reason for allowing it.
Counted against appeals
What harmed Green Belt openness
Bulk and roof space mattered
In 88548, a larger, taller replacement building with expansive roof space was noticeable and caused substantial harm to openness.
Modest openness harm still mattered
In 87864, even some modest harm to openness attracted substantial weight alongside the proposal’s inappropriateness.
Other considerations fell short
In 71206, the Inspector concluded that the other considerations did not clearly outweigh Green Belt and openness harm.
Helped or needed
Reuse conditions in the allowed example
Reuse had to preserve openness
In 57618, the cited reuse test required a permanent, substantial building that preserved openness and did not conflict with Green Belt purposes. The extract does not show the Inspector’s assessment.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice specify how height, bulk or roof space would reduce openness?
- Does it say why the proposal is considered inappropriate development?
- What evidence is said to clearly outweigh the stated Green Belt harm?
The extract for allowed appeal 57618 gives the Council’s view, while 71206 gives only a conclusion. 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
26 September 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as “Minor internal change from workshop to bedroom” and more precisely on the Council’s decision notice as “Change of use of workshop in existing outbuilding to a bedroom”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • whether the site would be suitable for the proposal in accessibility terms, having regard to the location of facilities, services and access to public transport and the potential reliance on journeys by private cars; • the effect upon the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to the potential for overlooking and loss of privacy; 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. 2
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
In the decision notice itself, which must be taken to represent the settled view of the Council, the Council highlights (without numbering it) paragraph 155 d) of the Framework. This explains that the reuse of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt provided such a development preserves its openness and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The decision notice then states that “Whilst the proposal does not seek to create a separate planning unit that would be the effect of the proposal. Such development would constitute inappropriate development which is by definition harmful to the greenbelt (sic).”
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
13 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
alterations to the existing traditional ‘cart shed’ timber framed single garage to support the storage and charging of two electric vehicles.
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 of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and iii) 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 development.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appeal scheme would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would reduce the openness of the Green Belt. I ascribe substantial weight to the harm caused to the Green Belt and openness. The absence of harm to the character and appearance of the area is a neutral consideration which does not weigh in favour of or against the development. When taken individually or cumulatively, the other considerations advanced in support of the scheme do not clearly outweigh the harm which would be caused to the Green Belt. In this instance, the very special circumstances that are necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt do not exist.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
26 April 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of the existing garage and construction of a new 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 Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect on the openness of the Green Belt, and; • If inappropriate, would the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Paragraph 148 of the Framework advises that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Moreover, very special circumstances to allow inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In this case, the proposal amounts to inappropriate development, and limited harm would be caused to the openness of the Green Belt. These factors attract substantial weight and would not be clearly outweighed by other considerations advanced by the appellant. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 4
11 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of a garage/workshop and aviary for the housing of peacocks (part retrospective).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Located down a track leading from [site address] , with planting on the boundaries, views of the proposed building from public vantage points would be restricted. However, due to the size and height of the replacement building, views of it would be possible from [site address] . As such, although the proposed building would be viewed within the context of the existing house, as well as neighbouring properties, it would nonetheless be noticeable within the landscape. Also, given the additional bulk and mass of the replacement building, including the expansive roof space, there would be additional impact upon the spatial openness of the Green Belt. As a result, there would be substantial harm to openness. Accordingly, the proposed development would not meet the exception set out in paragraph 154(g) of the Framework.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
27 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
extension to replace existing utility.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. As part of the assessment, I have also found that the proposal would result in some modest harm to openness. The substantial weight I must apply to the harm to the Green Belt, including to its openness, would not be clearly outweighed by the other considerations. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3