Shropshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in Shropshire?
See the cited reasons inspectors gave and the facts to check against your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 8 of 135
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 7
- of 8 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: Shropshire LPA (52.635421, −2.734141). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Shropshire Council appeal findings
Shropshire Green Belt: size, bulk and openness
The matched local set has no allowed appeal, so it cannot provide an allowed comparator.
Counted against appeals
Why the selected appeals were dismissed
Direct views exposed massing
Direct views made an extension's massing an obvious street-scene addition, causing moderate and localised harm to Green Belt openness.
Screening did not prevent openness harm
Even a screened, subservient rear extension added to the property's mass and bulk, causing a loss of spatial openness.
Larger replacement missed the exception
Greater height, width, floor area, footprint and site coverage made the replacement materially larger.
No allowed example matched
No allowed local example
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Show total size against existing extensions
A substantial extension was disproportionate when existing extensions were counted alongside it, despite a smaller footprint and lower roof.
Use a comparable fallback
A fallback with a larger footprint was still not comparable in scale or height to the appeal scheme.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify extra height, width, footprint or floor area?
- Could direct views make the proposal's massing obvious?
- If relevant, does the refusal assess a comparable fallback?
The selected examples are dismissed Shropshire appeals, with no allowed local comparator. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Read the reasoning in matched appeal decisions
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.
Dismissed appeal examples
5 examples
21 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
side extension at first floor.
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; • the effect of the proposal on protected species, with specific regard to bats; and • on the basis that the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to very special circumstances required to justify the development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed extension would not extend beyond the height, width or depth of the host dwelling. Nonetheless, it would be an obvious addition in the street-scene, with direct views from [address] of both its front and side elevations, meaning its overall massing would be readily apparent. This would result in some moderate and localised harm to the visual openness of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
10 April 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension to form dressing room/gym and erection of annexe to form granny flat for dependant relative.
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 National Planning Policy Framework (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, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed rear extension, though subservient to the host dwelling and not visible from public view due to being screened by the host property and annexe, would add further to the overall mass and bulk of the property. Consequently, there would be a loss of spatial openness to the Green Belt and thus cause moderate harm.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
22 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a new two-storey replacement dwelling.
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 (Framework) and relevant development plan policies; • 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 • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations and if so, whether this would amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appeal site is within the Green Belt and comprises a detached single-storey bungalow in a prominent position above the A442 road. The existing bungalow would be replaced by a substantial two-storey dwelling. The proposal would be taller and wider than the existing dwelling and would have a larger overall floor area. The proposal’s height and massing would therefore be markedly greater than the existing bungalow. It would also have a larger footprint than the present property, resulting in a significant increase in site coverage. As such, the proposed dwelling would be materially larger than the one it would replace. Therefore, the exception under sub-paragraph d) of the Framework paragraph 154 would not apply in this case.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
29 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘for the proposed demolition of existing conservatory and erection of a single storey rear extension, together with the erection of a ground and lower ground level incidental outbuilding providing garaging and gym facilities’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including its effect on the openness of the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies, ii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, 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 pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Having regard to the presented evidence, I have no reasons to doubt there is a real prospect that this fallback position would be implemented if the appeal proposal does not go ahead. However, whilst these buildings would cumulatively cover a larger footprint than the appeal scheme, they would be of a single storey scale and would not appear unduly prominent within the street scene. They would not be comparable in scale or height to the appeal proposal. Overall, based on the available information, I consider that the appeal scheme would be more harmful to the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the area than the fallback position.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 4
13 September 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
extension to existing outbuilding to create single occupancy assisted dwelling unit.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: - whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; -the effect of the proposal on protected species; 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 required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Framework does not define what it means by ‘disproportionate’. Thus, an assessment of whether the proposed extension would be a disproportionate addition is a matter of planning judgement. Whilst it is stated that the extension would have a smaller footprint than the existing building and a lower roof height, nonetheless with a footprint of approximately 65m2 it would be of a considerable scale, and when seen in combination with the existing extensions would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building, and indeed the building as it currently exists. Accordingly, the proposal would not meet the above exception. It would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2