Sevenoaks District Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in Sevenoaks?
See the Green Belt objections in selected local appeals and the facts in allowed decisions.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 52 of 114
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 13
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 39
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 45
- of 52 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: Sevenoaks LPA (51.275504, 0.172122). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Sevenoaks District Council appeal findings
Sevenoaks Green Belt openness: added size and bulk
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, so their reasoning does not represent every local decision.
Counted against appeals
Where extra size harmed openness
More floorspace and height
Increased floorspace, height and massing were treated as loss of spatial openness and visual harm.
Harm was not absent
The inspector found inappropriate development and spatial openness harm, so the claimed absence of demonstrable harm carried neutral weight.
Other factors fell short
The inspector concluded that other considerations did not clearly outweigh Green Belt harm.
Helped or needed
What helped the allowed proposals
Less harm than the CLD scheme
Compared with the CLD scheme, the proposal caused less visual and spatial harm, despite some harm to openness.
Not disproportionate to the original building
The inspector judged the alterations, including earlier extensions, did not become disproportionate to the original building.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify added floorspace, height, massing or visual intrusion?
- Does it say the proposal harms spatial openness or is inappropriate development?
- Which other considerations are said to clearly outweigh Green Belt harm?
Appeal 33479 also addressed the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, so this review uses only its Green Belt openness reasoning. 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
18 December 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolition and rebuilding of garage; erection of a lobby between garage and dwelling and erection of a part two storey and part single storey rear extension.
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 any relevant development plan policies. • The effects 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 similarities between the appeal proposal and CLD scheme, the difference in the magnitude of the effects on openness would be relatively small. However, paragraph 148 of the Framework instructs that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Whilst the appeal scheme would harm openness, I have found the CLD scheme would have greater visual and spatial harm to Green Belt openness to which I attach substantial weight.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
18 March 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of some outbuildings and removal of post and wire fence. Erection of a greenhouse, chicken coop and rain water storage unit and the remodelling of part of the garden.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: a) whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; and b) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, as a matter of judgement, I find the scale of the proposed alterations, together with the previous extensions, whilst appearing larger than what previously existed, would not quite tip over into being disproportionate to the size of the original building. Therefore, in this instance these works would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt.
Paragraph 23 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
10 May 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of existing greenhouse; erection of first floor extension and alterations to the existing roofscape to include terrace with associated works to landscaping and existing access.
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
I have already identified the proposal would be inappropriate development and would harm the spatial openness of the Green Belt. Consequently, while the effects would not be of such magnitude that the proposal would conflict with any of the five purposes of including land in the Green Belt, as set out in Paragraph 143 of the Framework, I do not accept the appellant's assertion that there is an absence of demonstrable harm and so this consideration carries neutral weight.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
2 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey side and rear extension to garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues raised in respect of this appeal are: - a) Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies and the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and b) Whether harm by reason of inappropriateness would be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would those amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal?
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, I have identified that the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined by the Framework. Furthermore, the proposal would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt as required by the Framework. In addition, the proposal would conflict with Policy GB3 of the ADMP. The proposed development would, by definition, be harmful to the Green Belt, harm which the Framework indicates should be given substantial weight. In contrast, the other considerations carry, at best, moderate weight. 20.Having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that there are no considerations sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The proposed development conflicts with the development plan and the advice in the Framework. 21.For the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should fail.
Paragraph 19 · Source pages 3, 4
2 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
ground floor side / rear extensions, loft conversion, floor plan redesign and all associated works at Holmwood.
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 any relevant development plan policies. • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. • The effect of the proposal on the landscape and scenic beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). • 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
Openness has both spatial and visual elements. The spatial impacts arising from the proposal would be the loss of Green Belt openness from the increased floorspace, height, and massing of the dwelling. Visual harm would arise from the increased height and mass of the dwelling. The proposal would not therefore comply with Policy GB1 which restricts development which materially harms the openness of the Green Belt through excessive scale, bulk and visual intrusion.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2