Thurrock Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in Thurrock?
The selected examples show why Green Belt proposals were found inappropriate and what helped an allowed extension.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 24 of 115
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 20
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 20
- of 24 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: Thurrock LPA (51.50598, 0.373249). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Thurrock Council appeal findings
Green Belt enlargement, openness and special circumstances
The allowed comparison is limited to a rear extension, and the selected examples have a slightly different outcome mix from the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Concerns in dismissed Green Belt proposals
Disproportionate addition
A side extension was concluded to be a disproportionate addition beyond the original building and therefore inappropriate development.
Harm to openness
Dismissed examples found harm to openness alongside inappropriate development, with substantial weight given to the combined Green Belt harm.
Other considerations did not outweigh harm
Other considerations advanced for the proposals did not clearly outweigh the harm identified, so no very special circumstances were found.
Helped or needed
Measured scale of the allowed rear extension
Original size and dimensions
Its depth was proportionate to the original dwelling. It extended in one direction and remained no taller, so it was not disproportionately enlarged.
No openness harm found
The Inspector said that finding no disproportionate enlargement also meant the extension would not harm Green Belt openness.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say the proposal disproportionately enlarges the original building?
- Does it identify harm to Green Belt openness?
- Which other considerations does it say fail to outweigh that harm?
Some selected dismissals also concerned character and appearance harm, which this Green Belt review does not assess. 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
19 July 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a two-storey rear extension and internal alterations.
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 of the proposal on the character and appearance of [address] and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As a two-storey addition to a chalet bungalow, the rear extension could be perceived as large. However, the extended footprint of the building, to a depth of 5m, is proportionate to the depth of the original dwelling. The building’s 2 envelope would only be extended in one direction. The first floor and roof would undeniably add bulk, but the resulting building would be no taller than the existing and, when seen in the round, having considered floorspace, external dimensions, and appearance, I am satisfied that the size of the original building would not be disproportionately enlarged. For this reason, I find that the proposal would not amount to inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Implicit within this conclusion is that the proposal would not be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. There would therefore be no conflict with CSPMD Policy PMD6 or with the Framework in this regard.
Paragraph 8 · Source pages 2, 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
19 February 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a first floor side extension.
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 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I find that 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 PMD6 of the CS, which seeks to protect the Green Belt from harm, and with the Framework, in this regard. 1 APP/M1595/D/18/3218486
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
13 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of existing dwellinghouse and associated outbuildings followed by erection of four x 4-bedroom dwellinghouses with associated landscaping.
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 National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and development plan policy; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area; 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would cause harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness, as well as harm to openness, and substantial weight must be given cumulatively to this harm. I have also found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. The other considerations advanced in this case do not clearly outweigh the substantial harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.
Paragraph 35 · Source page 7
10 October 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the removal of conservatory and build new single storey rear 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 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
I consider that the development causes harm to the Green Belt by way of its inappropriateness and harm to its openness, and substantial weight must be given to this harm. On balance, the very limited weight attributed to the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm I have identified. I conclude therefore there are no very special circumstances to justify the development.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
17 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
an outbuilding for garage and snooker room to front of the property with new entrance and hard standing for cars and pedestrians.
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 National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and development plan policy; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area; 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would cause harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness, as well as moderate harm to openness, and substantial weight must be given cumulatively to this harm. I have also found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. The other considerations advanced in this case do not clearly outweigh the substantial harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.
Paragraph 25 · Source pages 4, 5