Sheffield City Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt development in Sheffield?
Learn which Green Belt harms the selected examples identify and what helped a minor dormer addition.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 6 of 122
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 6 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: Sheffield LPA (53.393412, −1.486964). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Sheffield City Council appeal findings
Green Belt harm against claimed benefits
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. Most dismissed extracts give conclusions, not earlier factual assessment.
Counted against appeals
Why Green Belt harm remained decisive
Other considerations had limited weight
The stated other considerations received limited or no weight and did not clearly outweigh the identified Green Belt harm.
Loss of openness added harm
The conclusion recorded inappropriate development and loss of openness, each given substantial weight.
Benefits did not outweigh the harm
The conclusions said the claimed benefits or other considerations did not clearly outweigh Green Belt harm.
Helped or needed
What helped the dormer appeal
A very minor addition
Two rear dormers were found to be a very minor addition to the original house.
The dwelling's original size
The Inspector used the building's size when it became a dwelling as the original-house baseline.
No policy conflict found
On that basis, the Inspector found no conflict with the cited Green Belt policy.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal treat the proposal as more than a minor addition?
- Does it say the proposal reduces Green Belt openness?
- Which claimed benefits does it say fail to outweigh the harm?
A dismissed appeal in the matched local set is not displayed, so its reasoning is unavailable here. 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
21 August 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
to replace two rear facing Velux windows with two dormer windows.
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
Policy GE6(a) of the Unitary Development Plan 1998 (UDP) advises that extensions in the Green Belt will be permitted where they form a minor addition to the original house. These two dormers clearly result in only a very minor addition to the original house. The original house in this regard, must relate to the size of the building when it became a dwelling. I therefore find no conflict with this policy.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
22 July 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
detached single storey oak framed garden outbuilding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant Development Plan policies; • the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • if the proposed 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 the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In the context of the above, very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations. Consequently, other considerations weighing in favour of the development must clearly outweigh any harm. I have given limited or no weight to the other considerations cited in favour of the development. In my view, these would not clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt and the harm to the character and appearance of the area. The very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not therefore exist.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
15 April 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for the erection of single-storey front and rear extensions, with balcony to the rear, erection of dormer windows to front and rooflights to front and rear of dwellinghouse.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are a) whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; b) its effect on the openness of the Green Belt; c) its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring property No 153 [name]; and d) if the development would be inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way 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 it.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and there would be a loss of openness. These harms are ascribed substantial weight. The other considerations advanced would be, for the reasons I have set out, worthy of only limited weight. They would therefore, collectively, not be sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt such that the very special circumstances necessary to justify the appeal scheme do not exist. The proposed development would conflict with Policy GE6 of the UDP and the Framework. There are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight that would indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
24 April 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as erection of front porch extension and single storey rear extension including rear raised terrace and balustrade (resubmission of 22/01651/FUL).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to any relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), • if the proposed development is inappropriate development, its effect on the openness of the Green Belt, • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the area, and • if the development is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations that amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As noted above, in accordance with the Framework, substantial weight is attached to any harm to the Green Belt, and very special circumstances will not exist unless harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. For the reasons given, I conclude that the harms I have found are not clearly outweighed by the other considerations outlined. Consequently, the very special circumstances required to justify the proposed development do not exist. As such, the proposal does not accord with Green Belt policies in the Framework.
Paragraph 27 · Source page 5
16 August 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for the erection of a single storey extension, canopy over front door and amendments to the existing elevations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
These are: • Whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the development plan; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • If the development would be inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way 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 it.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In considering the substantial weight given to the Green Belt, to my mind, the benefits outlined above do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Therefore, 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 development do not exist and the proposal would conflict with the Framework.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4