Stratford-on-Avon District Council appeal evidence
Refused for inappropriate Green Belt development in Stratford-on-Avon?
See the selected local objections and the conclusions reached in allowed Green Belt decisions.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 34 of 80
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 29
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 31
- of 34 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: Stratford-on-Avon LPA (52.178824, −1.622946). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Stratford-on-Avon District Council appeal findings
How Green Belt additions were judged in Stratford-on-Avon
The selected examples include more allowed decisions than the matched local set. The trellis-fence example sits at the edge of this issue because it also includes character-and-appearance harm.
Counted against appeals
Why additions failed the Green Belt exception
Garage judged disproportionate
The inspector found the new three-bay garage disproportionate to the original building, so it did not meet paragraph 154(c).
Single-storey comparison differed
The possible single-storey extension was materially different: the proposed scheme had visual and spatial effects and a significant volume increase.
Other matters did not outweigh harm
In the trellis-fence case, the inspector concluded that other considerations did not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.
Helped or needed
What supported the Green Belt exception
No separate openness assessment
For the retained summerhouse, the inspector found paragraph 154(c) did not require a separate openness assessment.
Garage met the stated exception
For the detached double garage, the inspector concluded it satisfied paragraph 154(c) and was not inappropriate development.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal describe the proposal as disproportionate to the original building?
- Is it comparing your scheme with a materially different single-storey extension?
- Does the refusal explain why other considerations did not outweigh Green Belt harm?
The allowed double-garage extract gives only a conclusion, not the facts that satisfied the exception. 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
2 examples
20 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘retain the erection of a single storey timber summerhouse’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: a) Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and relevant development plan policies, and b) The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
This stipulation is provided within the context of an assessment of impact that would be caused to the openness and character of the Green Belt on a case by case basis. This approach is inconsistent with the Framework, as Paragraph 154 c) does not require the impact on openness to be considered. Impact on openness is implicitly taken into account in the exceptions provided by the Framework, unless there is a specific requirement to consider the actual effect on openness, which there is not for Paragraph 154 c).
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
16 December 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of a detached double garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
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
For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as it satisfies paragraph 154 c) of the Framework. It would also accord with Policy CS.10 of the CS. Given the proposed development would not be inappropriate development there is no need for me to consider its impact on openness.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
29 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of two storey side and rear extension, single storey rear extension and alterations to the front.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies; ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and iii) if the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to very special circumstances necessary to justify it.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appellant suggests that a similar single storey rear extension could be constructed under a prior approval application. However, this would be materially different to what is proposed, and while it may also reduce openness, any effects would be confined to the ground floor level in that instance. There is therefore nothing to suggest that there would be the same visual and spatial effects, including in terms of the significant increase in volume that would result from the more substantial proposals before me. Even if the extent of the extensions have been reduced in size from that originally proposed, and the scheme is the minimum the applicant desires from a functional perspective, those factors do not justify the identified harm to the Green Belt. I therefore afford these considerations only limited weight.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
27 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a new single-storey, three bay wide garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies; ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; and iii) if the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to very special circumstances necessary to justify it.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would therefore amount to a disproportionate addition to the original building and as such would not meet the exception in paragraph 154(c) of the NPPF. It would consequently be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would conflict with the Framework and the relevant development plan policy.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
21 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of trellis fence to allow the safe growth of newly planted trees.
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 any relevant development plan policies, and the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and, • if there would be harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, whether the harm would be clearly outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
The development is inappropriate development within the Green Belt which would have a negligible impact on the openness of the Green Belt. In accordance with the Framework, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. It is also harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The other considerations put forward by the appellant carry little weight and do not outweigh the substantial weight that I give to the harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The development does not accord with the development plan and there are no other material considerations to outweigh that finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed. [planning inspector] 1 [name] and Gas Limited v SSCLG, Surrey County Council, [address] Action Group [2013] EWHC 2643 (Admin)
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3