St Albans City and District Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt development in St Albans City and?
See the Green Belt harm cited in dismissed cases and the conclusions reached in selected allowed appeals.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 40 of 139
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 29
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 38
- of 40 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: St Albans LPA (51.772092, −0.34247). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
St Albans City and District Council appeal findings
Why Green Belt additions were inappropriate
The selected examples include both outcomes, but allowed decisions feature more often here than in the matched local set. Some allowed extracts give only conclusions.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt harm not outweighed
Limited openness harm still failed
Despite limited openness harm, the proposal was inappropriate and its other considerations did not clearly outweigh Green Belt harm.
Reduced openness carried weight
The outbuilding was found inappropriate and to reduce openness. Those harms carried substantial weight against it.
Helped or needed
How additions avoided Green Belt inappropriateness
Not significantly larger or different
The proposal was found neither significantly larger nor of different character, so its additions were not disproportionate to the original building.
Outbuilding not disproportionate
The decision concludes that the outbuilding was not a disproportionate addition over the original building.
Extension met an exemption
The decision concludes that the extension accorded with the Paragraph 149(c) exemption and was not inappropriate Green Belt development.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal call your proposal disproportionate to the original building?
- Does it identify a reduction in Green Belt openness?
- Which other considerations does the refusal say clearly outweigh Green Belt harm?
Some allowed extracts state only their conclusion, without the underlying comparisons or measurements. 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
26 September 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to relevant development plan policy and the National Planning policy Framework (the Framework).
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all the above into account, I find that the proposal would not result in a significantly larger building on the appeal site nor a building of different character. Overall, it would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. It would thus satisfy Framework paragraph 154(c) and as such it would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As such it is not necessary to consider the impact on Green Belt openness any further, nor is it necessary for very special circumstances to be demonstrated.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
27 January 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as the erection of a brick built outbuilding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are as follows: • Whether the development 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 development on the openness of the Green Belt; and • Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, would be outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, in this case and for the factors above, the development is not a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. I therefore find no conflict with the Framework or the general aims of Local Plan Policies 1 and 13 and the SPG which seek to preserve the Green Belt from inappropriate development.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
23 November 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a two storey rear and side extension with front porch.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and development plan policy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposal would accord with the exemption at Paragraph 149(c). Consequently, the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and it would not conflict with the Framework or the general aims of Policies 1 and 13 of the [site address] District Local Plan Review 1994 and the SPG to preserve the Green Belt from inappropriate development.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
28 January 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a loft conversion with rear dormer and front rooflights, single storey front infill extension with canopy porch.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal 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 proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Its impact on openness in this location would be limited. The Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and that development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Even when taken together, the other considerations in this case would not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy 13 of the Local Plan and guidance contained in the Framework relating to Green Belts.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 4
3 May 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a rear outbuilding (retrospective).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the appeal development is inappropriate development for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; • if the appeal development is inappropriate development, 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 it.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have found harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and because of a reduction to its openness. These matters attract substantial weight against the development. Having considered all matters in support of the development, they collectively would not clearly outweigh the identified harm to the Green Belt. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The development therefore conflicts with Policies 1 and 13 of the LP, the SPG and the Framework. Taken together, these policies, amongst other things, seek to protect the essential characteristics of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3