Surrey Heath Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in Surrey Heath?
See the Green Belt concerns cited in a dismissal and the evidence features to check in selected allowed 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
- 23 of 108
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 15
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 19
- of 23 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: Surrey Heath LPA (51.342928, −0.670505). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Surrey Heath Borough Council appeal findings
Green Belt openness and fallback development
The selected examples lean allowed, while the matched local set leans dismissed. The dismissed extract provides its conclusion, not the earlier assessment.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt harm in the dismissal
Harm was not clearly outweighed
The Inspector concluded that inappropriate development and lost Green Belt openness carried substantial weight, while the appellant’s considerations did not clearly outweigh that harm.
Helped or needed
What reduced Green Belt impact
Less built form than fallback
In an allowed example, removing existing outbuildings and relinquishing permitted ones meant less built form and more consolidated development than the fallback position.
Green Belt conclusion without detail
The other selected allowed extracts conclude that proposals would not be inappropriate Green Belt development, but do not give the detailed comparison behind that conclusion.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal explain its claimed loss of Green Belt openness?
- Which existing or permitted outbuildings would remain, be removed, or be given up?
- Does the refusal say which harm your evidence must clearly outweigh?
The detailed allowed extract concerns a fallback position, so it may not match proposals without existing or permitted outbuildings. 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
4 examples
12 December 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension following demolition of conservatory, two storey side extension following demolition of garage and render to external walls.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed 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.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would be in accordance with the exemption set out in paragraph 154c) of the Framework.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
21 November 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of detached open sided garden dining shelter.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the appeal scheme would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As such it would be in accordance with section 13 of the Framework. 1 APP/A1910/W/19/3242740, APP/D3640/D/20/3262305, APP/N0410/D/17/318347
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
17 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing outbuildings and part of the existing dwelling. Erection of part single, part double storey front, side and rear extensions and alterations to fenestration.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • whether the development is 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 • if it 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 required to justify the development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, the appeal proposal would result in a notable reduction in built form in terms of footprint, volume and floor space compared to the fallback position. This is due to the removal of the existing outbuildings and the appellant’s offer to relinquish the outbuildings approved under permitted development, which includes the carport in the middle of the site and detached outbuilding to the north. Consequently, built development would be consolidated in one area, rather than sprawled across the large site. Although the existing and proposed outbuildings are, and would be, separate from the main dwelling, they would nevertheless be viewed in the context of the main dwelling, and collectively, they would be highly visible and would increase the spread of development along [site address] . Considering these factors, I find the appeal proposal would have significantly less impact on the spatial and visual dimensions of the openness of the Green Belt compared to the fallback position. I therefore attribute very substantial weight to the fallback position.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
13 April 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as Carbarn addition.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, for the reasons identified above, the proposed development would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Therefore, it would not conflict with paragraphs 147 and 149 of the Framework, which seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
1 example
12 January 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of first floor side extension over garage and single storey rear extension following demolition of existing rear kitchen, conservatory and cloakroom extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appeal site is located within an area of Green Belt. Accordingly, the main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if the development would be inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and further harm to the Green Belt would be caused as a result of the loss of openness. These matters carry substantial weight. Moderate weight can be given to the considerations cited in support of the proposal. Consequently, the considerations advanced by the appellant do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt that I have identified. Accordingly, very special circumstances necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt do not exist. The proposal therefore conflicts with the Framework.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3