London Borough of Sutton appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt development in Sutton?
See the Green Belt harm cited in selected Sutton appeals and what the allowed extract does not explain.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 5 of 134
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 5 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: Sutton LPA (51.362086, −0.177544). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Sutton appeal findings
Bulk and openness in Sutton’s Green Belt
The selected allowed example gives only a conclusion, not the earlier Green Belt analysis.
Counted against appeals
Where additions harmed Green Belt openness
Disproportionate extra bulk
The roof extension’s bulk and scale, beyond earlier extensions, were found disproportionate and to cause significant harm to Green Belt openness.
Other considerations lacked weight
The conclusion says the proposal was inappropriate, would not preserve Green Belt openness, and its other considerations did not clearly outweigh the harm.
Helped or needed
The allowed Green Belt conclusion
No Green Belt conflict found
The extract concludes the first-floor porch-and-canopy extension did not conflict with Green Belt protection on this main issue. It gives no earlier reasoning.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal call the addition disproportionate to the original building?
- Does it explain the proposal’s effect on Green Belt openness?
- Which other considerations does it say fail to outweigh Green Belt harm?
The allowed Sutton extract does not say why the Inspector found no Green Belt conflict. 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
5 April 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
first floor extension over existing porch and canopy roof.
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 (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; and (b) effects on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
It also follows that the proposal would accord with Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021, which seeks to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. As such, and altogether, there would not be conflict with the development plan as a whole on this main issue.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
16 May 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “Demolition of a part of the existing single storey extension and construction of part two storey extension on the front porch in the front elevation, part two storey extension on both sides and on the rear of the existing single storey extension with dormer windows to the front and the rear of the house and alterations to the existing internal floor plans”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the development plan and the Framework; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • 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 the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Although the proposal would be proportionally significant in relation to the original building, it would not encroach into the Green Belt to a significant 1 The London Plan (March 2021) 2 Sutton Local Plan 2016-2031 (February 2018) extent and the effect of the development would be limited to an area on and around an existing building and between other dwellings. The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, both visually and spatially, would therefore be limited.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
21 November 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (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 proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • If the development is inappropriate, whether the harm by reasons 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 proposed development.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In this respect the proposal fails to accord with the Framework and Policy 24 of the Sutton Local Plan 2014-2031, (LP), 2018, which amongst other things states that planning permission will not be granted for inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and that any new buildings or structure should preserve the openness of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
3 November 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing garage and erection of a part one, part two storey side, rear and front extension and formation of front entrance porch.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues raised by this appeal are: - a) Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and development plan policy and the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; b) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; c) The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of existing neighbouring occupiers at [address]; and d) Whether harm by reason of inappropriateness would be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would those amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal?
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, I have identified that the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined by the Framework. This brings the proposal into conflict with Policy 24 of the Local Plan. Furthermore, the proposal would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt as required by the Framework. In addition, the proposal would conflict with Policies 28 and 29 of the Local Plan as the development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of existing adjoining occupiers at [address]. The other considerations hold no weight in favour of the proposal. I have found that the other considerations advanced in support of the proposal in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified which is the test they have to meet. The proposed development would, by definition, be harmful to the Green Belt, harm which the Framework indicates should be given substantial weight.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
19 August 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Roof extension to existing garage to form additional habitable space / annex linked to main house.
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 and the effect on the openness; • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; • Whether the 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 pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
By reason of the bulk and scale of the proposed development, and the significant extension to the dwelling and garage beyond the extensions which have already taken place, I conclude that the proposal represents disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original garage building and dwelling and therefore would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, causing significant harm to the openness. [name] accept that the proposal makes use of the existing site and remains within the curtilage of the existing property, I do not consider that these factors outweigh the harm to the Green Belt or its openness as identified.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3