Spelthorne Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in Spelthorne?
Learn which Green Belt concerns appeared in selected decisions and how the allowed extension stayed proportionate.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 7 of 70
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 7
- of 7 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: Spelthorne LPA (51.424808, −0.467983). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Spelthorne Borough Council appeal findings
Green Belt harm and extensions in Spelthorne
The selected examples do not cover every dismissed decision in the matched local set. One is a condition appeal, and another records a low-profile rule.
Counted against appeals
Why Green Belt schemes were dismissed
Harm needed clear counterweight
The selected dismissals state that Green Belt harm carries substantial weight and needs other considerations to clearly outweigh it.
Openness needed protecting
A selected dismissed condition appeal concluded the condition was necessary for Green Belt openness and cited preventing urban sprawl.
Low-profile rule still conflicted
A selected dismissed loft conversion and balcony was found not disproportionate, but its conclusion recorded conflict with a single-storey, low-profile extension rule.
Helped or needed
What kept an extension proportionate
Earlier work was assessed together
The selected allowed extension was assessed with previous alterations and was not found disproportionate to the original building.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal compare all additions with the original building?
- Does it identify a loss of Green Belt openness?
- Does it explain why other considerations do not clearly outweigh Green Belt harm?
The selected allowed example is a first-floor side/rear extension, not a loft conversion, balcony or condition removal. 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
13 February 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a first-floor side/rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: - i) whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the development plan and the Framework; and i) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore overall, I do not find the proposed extension, in combination with the previous alterations, would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development would not constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt as defined by the Framework or conflict with the development plan policies GB1 and EN2.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
1 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as first floor creating habitable accommodation to existing bungalow and internal alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposed extension 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 • whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, so as to amount to very special circumstances.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appeal scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the Framework advises that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. It also indicates that inappropriate development is by definition harmful and should not be approved except in ‘very special circumstances. These will not exist unless potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
9 December 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of two storey house following demolition of the [address], adjacent outbuildings and stables, without complying with a condition attached to planning permission [name]/01/0224, dated 27 September 2002.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are whether or not condition No 4 is reasonable and necessary having regard to: • flood risk; and, • the openness of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the condition is both reasonable and necessary having regard to the openness of the Green Belt. Its removal would conflict with the aims of Policy GB1 of the Spelthorne Borough Local Plan Saved Policies (2008) which states that development will not be permitted which would not maintain the openness of the Green Belt. It would also conflict with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy at paragraph 142 of the Framework, to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4
24 May 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Retrospective planning for a single storey wrap around extension and cantilevered deck extension’.
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; - Effects on the openness of the Green Belt; - Effects on flooding; - 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Framework makes clear that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. It also makes clear that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
25 January 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a loft conversion and balcony.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Whether or not the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Having found that the proposed extension would not be disproportionate it follows that the proposed development would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. There would therefore be no conflict with part (a) of policy EN2 of the [name] and Polices Development Plan Document 2009 (CS). This requires that a proposed development would not significantly change the scale of the original building. There would however be conflict with part (f) which requires that within the [name] proposed rebuilding and extensions should be single storey with a low profile roof.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2