Staffordshire Moorlands District Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in Staffordshire Moorlands?
See the Green Belt harm in the selected examples and the conclusion reached in the allowed access case.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 18 of 71
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 12
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 13
- of 18 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: Staffordshire Moorlands LPA (53.050233, −2.024297). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Staffordshire Moorlands District Council appeal findings
Why Green Belt harm was not outweighed
The selected examples have a lower share of allowed appeals than the matched local set, and the allowed extract gives only a final finding.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt harm was not outweighed
The arena did not preserve openness
For the riding arena, the Inspector found that it would not preserve openness and conflicted with Green Belt purposes.
Open land checked sprawl
For the detached dwelling site, its lack of built development and relationship with nearby open land supported its role in checking sprawl.
Other considerations fell short
For the side extension, the other considerations did not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.
Helped or needed
Special circumstances for vehicular access
Other considerations outweighed the harm
For the vehicular access, the Inspector concluded that other considerations clearly outweighed the identified harm and justified the development.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify lost openness or a Green Belt purpose?
- Is the site described as open land or lacking built development?
- Does the refusal identify other considerations that clearly outweigh the stated harm?
These selected Staffordshire Moorlands cases span an access, arena, dwelling, outbuilding and extension, so their facts may differ from yours. 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
27 July 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
formation of vehicular access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and • Is the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, clearly outweighed by other considerations, and if so, does this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Paragraph 148 of the Framework sets out that very special circumstances will only exist if the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In this case I find the other considerations identified above do clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Therefore, looking at the case as a whole, I consider that very special circumstances exist which justify the development.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
29 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a riding arena.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are as follows: • Whether the proposal would constitute 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 character and appearance of the area. • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of adjacent dwellings. • Whether any harm to the green belt 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 proposed development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have found that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the green belt as it would not preserve its openness and would conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and the Framework is clear in paragraph 153 that substantial weight is given to any harm to the green belt. Development proposals should not be approved in these scenarios 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.
Paragraph 17 · Source pages 3, 4
16 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of a detached dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are whether the appeal site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, land use, and amount of development, with particular regard to: • whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies; • the effects of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; and, • if inappropriate development, 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 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, although there would be other areas of remaining Green Belt land to the north and south and remain a dividing line between Council jurisdiction areas, due to its location, absence of built development, and relationship with nearby open land, visually and spatially, the appeal site makes a strong contribution to Green Belt purpose a), to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas. Therefore, the proposal would not constitute grey belt land and so, would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In view of this conflict with purpose a), it is not 1 Annex 2: Glossary of the National Planning Policy Framework. necessary to go on and consider purposes b) or d) of paragraph 143 of the Framework.
Paragraph 10 · Source pages 2, 3
5 September 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘retrospective application for the erection of replacement domestic outbuilding’.
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 proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • 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
Paragraph 152 of the Framework advises that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 153 of the Framework advises that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and very special circumstances will not exist unless that harm, and any other harm, are clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 19 · Source pages 3, 4
20 September 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a side 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; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • 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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. In accordance with the Framework, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Even taken together, the other considerations described above do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Accordingly very special circumstances necessary to outweigh this harm do not exist. The proposal would not accord with the Development Plan and there are no other material considerations to outweigh that finding. Therefore for the reasons given, I dismiss the appeal.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3