South Staffordshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt inappropriateness in South Staffordshire?
Learn how size, openness and other considerations featured in selected local Green Belt 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
- 15 of 46
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 10
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 10
- of 15 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 Staffordshire LPA (52.625586, −2.176658). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
South Staffordshire Council appeal findings
Green Belt openness, size and very special circumstances
The selected examples have a higher proportion of allowed decisions than the matched local set, and cover different project types and scales.
Counted against appeals
Open space and very special circumstances
More built form reduced openness
A larger farmhouse and double garage took up more open space and increased built form, causing significant harm to Green Belt openness.
Other considerations did not outweigh harm
The garage-annex scheme's other considerations did not clearly outweigh Green Belt and openness harm, so very special circumstances were not found.
Planting did not cure openness harm
Planting was described as a way to integrate development, not to hide an otherwise unacceptable scheme.
Helped or needed
When Green Belt schemes were not inappropriate
Not materially larger, same use
The replacement building stayed in the same use and was not materially larger than the one it replaced.
Canopy found not inappropriate
For the agricultural canopy, the Inspector concluded it was not inappropriate development and did not harm Green Belt openness.
Extension was not disproportionate
The extension was not a disproportionate addition over the original building, so it was not inappropriate development.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say the proposal is materially larger than what it replaces?
- Does the refusal identify extra built form or lost open space?
- Does the refusal explain whether other considerations clearly outweigh Green Belt harm?
The selected examples range from a pool house to a housing conversion, so their facts may not match your proposal. 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
14 November 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Proposed increase in height to existing breeze block pool flat roof pool house structure.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues relevant to this appeal are: whether the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies; and the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, the development is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt and consequently, it complies with Policy GB1 of the CS as well as paragraph 154d) of the Framework, insofar as the replacement building is not materially larger than the one it has replaced and is in the same use.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
14 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
an open sided covered canopy for agricultural purposes.
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, including its effects on the openness of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons already given, I find that the proposal does not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and the relevant Development Plan policy, including its effect on the openness of the 1 PINS reference APP/C3430/W/24/3356390 Green Belt. It would thus similarly accord with Policy GB1 of the [name]. The Council’s Green Belt and Open Countryside Supplementary Planning Document, dated April 2014, makes no additional requirements relevant to the proposal and so I find no conflict with it.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
7 May 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
extension to provide ground floor lounge and relocated kitchen.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal is inappropriate development within the Green Belt for the purposes of planning policy set out in the Framework and the development plan; • the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if the 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 development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building, and in so doing would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would not conflict with the Framework and the aims of Policy GB1 of the CS
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
16 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
conversion and extension of existing garage to create an annex to incorporate a lounge/games room, bedroom/ensuite and attached double garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the development and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • 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 site and the surrounding area; and • if the development is inappropriate, 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
The appeal scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. The proposal would also harm the openness of the Green Belt. Given this harm is to be afforded substantial weight, the other considerations cited by the appellants do not clearly outweigh the totality of the harm identified, and so very special circumstances do not exist.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
9 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
conversion of 1no. previously approved detached dwelling into 2no. semi detached dwellings.
Issue identified by the Inspector
In this context, 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 Framework, including whether the appeal site would be an appropriate location for the proposal with regards to the Council’s spatial strategy for the area, with particular regard to its accessibility to local facilities and services; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; 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 8 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be appreciably larger than the existing farmhouse and, together with the double garage, would take up considerably more open space. I note the Council’s assessment that public views of the proposal would be limited. However, I saw on site that, it would be visible from the surrounding countryside, [address], properties on [address] and, despite the roadside hedge, various points along [site address] . Although the proposal would replace an existing building and would not introduce development into an otherwise open field, it would nonetheless increase the extent of built form on the appeal site. The Council refers to proposed planting along the northern boundary, which would, over time, screen and soften the appearance of the proposed dwellings from that direction. However, I am mindful that landscaping should be used to integrate a development with its surroundings and not to screen a development that would otherwise be unacceptable. Overall, I am of the view that the proposal would result in significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 18 · Source pages 3, 4