Runnymede Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in Runnymede?
Learn which Green Belt harms led to dismissal and what the allowed examples actually record.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 21 of 45
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 16
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 21
- of 21 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: Runnymede LPA (51.393796, −0.54131). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Runnymede Borough Council appeal findings
Green Belt openness and disproportionate additions
Allowed appeals are over-represented in the selected examples compared with the matched local set. One allowed extract records harm, but not why the appeal was allowed.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt harms in Runnymede extensions
Openness harm carried substantial weight
Loss of Green Belt openness carried substantial weight in the cited extensions.
Need and fallback carried little weight
An outbuilding fallback, personal need and more natural light did not clearly outweigh the harm.
Character harm added another objection
A rear extension was also found to harm the character and appearance of the area.
Helped or needed
Evidence for a non-disproportionate addition
Not a disproportionate addition
Evidence and site observations supported the finding that the extension was not disproportionate to the original dwelling.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a loss of Green Belt openness?
- Does it say your extension is disproportionate to the original dwelling?
- Which claimed benefits does it say do not outweigh the harm?
The examples are extensions and a conservatory, so they do not cover every Green Belt proposal in Runnymede. 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
1 July 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
first floor rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to any relevant development plan policies and the Framework;
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, even if the proposed extension was considered to result in an increase in the GFA of the original building of 63%, based on the considerations set out in Policy EE14 of the Local Plan, the evidence before me and my observations on site, it would not be a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original dwelling. It would therefore not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would accord with Policy EE14 of the Local Plan and the associated provisions of the Framework, which seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
11 September 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a ground floor single storey rear extension, single storey front extension and loft conversion with dormer windows.
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 3 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, whilst I find there would be limited harm to the visual and spatial dimensions of the openness of the Green Belt, there would be harm nevertheless. Therefore, the proposal would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
1 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a first floor side and rear extension with rear infill extension at ground floor level. Conversion of garage to habitable accommodation and changes to fenestration.
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 any relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”). • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. • If the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In this instance the harm to the Green Belt would not be clearly outweighed by other considerations. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist. Therefore, it conflicts with the Framework’s policies that seek to protect Green Belts, and it conflicts with RLP Policy EE14 and the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework that outweigh that finding. Accordingly, the proposal is unacceptable, and the appeal should be dismissed.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4
5 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear conservatory extension.
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’). • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. • If the proposed development is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposed development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and harms its openness, to which I must attribute substantial weight against the development. Balanced against that are the other considerations identified above. I cannot attach any substantial weight to the option to build an outbuilding as a fallback position. The appellants need for the proposed development, including the PSED considerations, and the improvement of natural light to the property attract only limited weight. The preservation of the character and appearance of the CA is a neutral factor in the planning balance. I conclude that the other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and therefore there are no very special circumstances to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
5 August 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as, “Additional first floor extension, to the rear additional fenestration”.
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 of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • if the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether the 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 it.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would result in the loss of its openness. These matters carry substantial weight. Additionally, the proposal would give rise to harm to the character and appearance of the area. Taken together, I find that the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist. Therefore, the proposal would not comply with the Green Belt aims of Policy EE14 of the Local Plan, or the Framework, and consequently would be unacceptable.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4