Three Rivers District Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt additions in Three Rivers?
See what selected examples show about additions, openness and fallback claims.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 32 of 120
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 23
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 29
- of 32 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: Three Rivers LPA (51.660988, −0.460566). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Three Rivers District Council appeal findings
Three Rivers Green Belt enlargement evidence
Appeal 3861 gives only the Green Belt-harm conclusion, not the earlier analysis.
Counted against appeals
Three Rivers Green Belt objections
Extension exceeded original size
The extension and patio were found disproportionate over the original building, so the proposal was inappropriate development.
Fallback looked less harmful
The claimed fallback was not broadly the same or better: rear and side single-storey work would cause less visual harm to openness.
PD comparison was not proved
The outbuilding argument did not help because the possible permitted development scheme was not clearly defined as comparable.
Helped or needed
Three Rivers Green Belt evidence that helped
No disproportionate enlargement
The dwelling changes had no unacceptable floorspace increase or disproportionate additions over the original building.
No harm to openness
The spatial and visual effects were not found to harm Green Belt openness.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal call the addition disproportionate over the original building?
- Do drawings show spatial or visual loss of Green Belt openness?
- Is any fallback or permitted development alternative clearly comparable?
The selected examples cover dwelling alterations and an outbuilding, not every Green Belt proposal. 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
9 August 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
alterations to existing main dwelling including changes to roof profile, new dormer windows, new porches and window alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As set out above, the proposal would not lead to an unacceptable increase in floorspace, and its spatial and visual impacts would not harm the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would satisfy the guidance contained in the SPD and would not therefore result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Consequently, the proposal would not form inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The proposal would therefore comply with Policy CP11 of the [name] 2011 which sets out a general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and Policy DM2 of Development Management Policies Local Development Document 2013 which resists disproportionate size extensions to buildings in the Green Belt. In addition, the proposal would not conflict with the five purposes of the Green Belt set out at Paragraph 138 of the Framework.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
20 May 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of conservatory, new side and rear extension, flat roof link changed to pitch roof, amended roof profile to form additional roof form with gables front and back and three dormers, bay window added to front north wing.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to any relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • on the basis that the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to very special circumstances required to justify the development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposals subject to the applications comprise rear and side extensions, which would result in greater increases in the footprint of the appeal property than the proposal subject to this appeal. Nevertheless, even if the proposals subject of the applications were to result in more harm to the spatial openness of the Green Belt than the appeal proposal, they would also result in significantly less harm to the visual openness of the Green Belt. This is because they would only be to the side and the rear of the property and would be single storey. Therefore, they would only likely be seen from the upper floors of the nearest houses. As such, implementation of the proposal over the fallback position has not been shown to have an effect that would be broadly the same or better and therefore does not weigh in favour of granting permission.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
19 February 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
installation of a pre-fabricated 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 appeal 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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appellant has highlighted that permitted development (PD) rights for outbuildings are not affected by the Green Belt and that outbuildings are, therefore, not considered to be inherently unacceptable in such locations. However, the existence of permitted development rights that could be utilised on the appeal site has not been clearly defined. Thus, I cannot be certain that a comparable development to the appeal proposal could be brought forward under PD rights should planning permission be refused. Consequently, this does not weigh in favour of the appeal proposal.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
28 September 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Two-storey side extension (there is an extant consent for a partially implemented single storey 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 Framework and relevant policies of the Development Plan; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and, • If the proposal is inappropriate development, 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 it.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Framework advises that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. In this case, there would be harm by reason of inappropriateness, as well as harm arising from loss of openness.
Paragraph 23 · Source page 4
18 March 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of existing carport, construction of single storey side extension and raised patio to the rear.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of development plan policy and the Framework; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if it is inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by reason 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 the development.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. Therefore, the proposal would be inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policy CP11 of the CS, Policy DM2 of the LDD, which collectively seek to protect the Green Belt from harm and the Framework, in this regard.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3