South Gloucestershire Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt development in South Gloucestershire?
See the selected local Green Belt concerns and the facts recorded in allowed examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 27 of 151
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 22
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 22
- of 27 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: South Gloucestershire LPA (51.546888, −2.470647). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
South Gloucestershire Council appeal findings
South Gloucestershire Green Belt: size, openness, justification
The selected examples show more allowed decisions than the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Dismissed Green Belt extensions: size and justification
Original building comparison
The combined extensions were judged disproportionate to the original building, making the proposal inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Special circumstances not demonstrated
The Inspector concluded that other considerations did not clearly outweigh Green Belt harm, so the required very special circumstances had not been demonstrated.
Helped or needed
Allowed Green Belt cases: openness and first test
Reduced footprint and seclusion
Despite greater mass and visibility, the Inspector found a reduced footprint and secluded site left a modest overall effect, not substantial harm to openness.
Proposal found not inappropriate
The Inspector concluded the proposal was not inappropriate, so did not assess openness, Green Belt purposes or very special circumstances.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the notice call your extension disproportionate to the original building?
- Does it identify spatial or visual harm to Green Belt openness?
- Does it explain why other considerations do not outweigh Green Belt harm?
A dismissed extract supplies only the Inspector's conclusion, not the earlier analysis. 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
3 examples
3 July 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described on the planning application form as ‘Erection of garden building (retrospective) for use as a games room ancillary to main house’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is whether the appeal development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Framework identifies that certain forms of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, with Paragraph 154 (g) identifying that limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, would not be inappropriate.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
25 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a two storey side extension to form additional living accommodation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is 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;
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As the proposal would not be inappropriate development, it is not necessary to further consider the effect of the proposal on openness or the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, nor is it necessary to consider very special circumstances.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
15 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the appeal is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The test with regard to paragraph 154(g) is whether the development causes substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The greater mass of the building would inevitably reduce openness from a spatial perspective, although overall the footprint of built development on the appeal site would be reduced. The site is well secluded and the only public views obtainable are those from the public right of way to the north of the site and the wider landscape. The dwelling as extended would be more visually prominent and have a more obvious presence. Taking both spatial and visual effects into account, the development as a whole would have a modest effect on the openness of the Green Belt. However, whilst the building might be materially larger this would not be so sizeable as to amount to the substantial harm referred to in paragraph 154(g) of the Framework. 1 APP/P0119/D/25/3374214
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
17 December 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single-storey front and side extension and conversion of garage into habitable accommodation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues of the appeal are: • 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, • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • If the development is 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 development.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
To my mind, in this instance, the size of the combined extensions would result in additions to the original building that would be disproportionate in the terms of the Framework and the Local Plan. Therefore, the appeal development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would conflict with Policy PSP7 of the Local Plan and the Framework.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
16 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
first floor extension over garage to provide additional living accommodation.
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 proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if the proposal is inappropriate development, whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to amount to very special circumstances.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out above, the harm to the Green Belt would not be clearly outweighed by other considerations and, therefore, the very special circumstances required to justify a grant of planning permission have not been demonstrated. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3