Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt inappropriateness in Tonbridge and Malling?
Learn why selected local Green Belt cases were dismissed and which scheme facts helped allowed appeals.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 31 of 65
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 22
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 30
- of 31 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: Tonbridge and Malling LPA (51.273635, 0.357948). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council appeal findings
Green Belt openness and building exceptions
The selected examples include both outcomes, but brief extracts cover varied extensions, garages and outbuildings.
Counted against appeals
Why selected Green Belt appeals failed
Benefits did not outweigh Green Belt harm
The garage was found inappropriate, harmful to openness and unsuitable in open countryside. The cited benefits did not clearly outweigh that harm.
Design quality stayed neutral
The inspector treated good design, no harm to neighbours or the AONB, and no objections as neutral. They did not clearly outweigh Green Belt harm.
Helped or needed
What helped allowed Green Belt schemes
Screening and less built volume
Mature planting and the existing footprint limited the replacement outbuilding's visual effect. Its reduced built volume increased spatial openness.
An extension exception applied
The garage/pool house was considered an extension to the dwelling and fell within a Green Belt exception, so it was not inappropriate.
Smaller than the existing outbuilding
The extension was smaller than an elevated, visually prominent outbuilding. The inspector said the outbuilding would have greater adverse effects on openness.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say your building is inappropriate development in the Green Belt?
- Does the refusal identify its footprint, volume, height or visibility as reducing openness?
- Does the refusal describe it as an extension, replacement outbuilding or new building?
The selected examples are brief extracts from varied extensions, garages and 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
3 examples
18 September 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of single storey side extension with glazing and bi fold doors to be used as dining/entertaining space.
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 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 • 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 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
The outbuilding would have an external floor area of 23m2 and a gross external volume of 69m3, and therefore would be substantially larger than the proposed extension. In addition, the outbuilding would occupy an elevated position, above the floor level of the appeal property and would be visually prominent from the front of the appeal site. The scale and siting of the outbuilding would therefore have greater adverse impacts on Green Belt openness than the proposed extension.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
6 September 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing outbuildings and construction of new garage/pool house incorporating changes to hard and soft landscaping.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that when considered as an extension to the dwellinghouse, the proposed garage/pool house would comply with paragraph 154 c) of the Framework and falls within one of the exceptions for the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt. It would not therefore be inappropriate development and consequently would not conflict with Policy CP3 of the [name]. Because it would not be inappropriate development there is no need for me to have any further regard to its impact on openness or assess whether it is justified by very special circumstances.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
26 February 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a replacement outbuilding.
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; 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
The site is visually contained by the mature trees and planting to the front and side boundaries. The building would be glimpsed from the access track through the entrance to the site. Nevertheless, given the level of screening from the landscaping and the position of the proposal on the footprint of the existing building, the visual effect of the development would be minimal. Consequently, the proposal would result in only limited harm to the visual openness of the Green Belt. In addition, due to the overall reduction in the volume of built form, the proposal would lead to an increase in the spatial openness of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
11 April 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a new oak framed three bay barn hipped single storey garage measuring 9.0m x 5.5m that comprises of two double doors and one car port.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) having regard to the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • If the proposal is 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is harmful by definition. In addition, there is a degree of harm arising from the loss of openness. In accordance with paragraph 148 of the Framework, I attach substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt. In addition, the proposal would not be a suitable form of development in the open countryside. Overall, I consider that the benefits cited in the scheme’s favour do not clearly outweigh the harm it would cause. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. As a result, it would be contrary to Policy CP3 of the CS and the Framework. Therefore, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4
29 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of single storey side extension with glazing and bi fold doors to be used as dining/entertaining space.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, revised July 2021 (the Framework), and relevant development plan policies; • The effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and • Whether harm, by reason of inappropriateness, 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
The proposed extension would be of high-quality design and materials, that would be in keeping with the existing dwelling and its surroundings. Even if there would be no harm to neighbours’ living conditions, the character or appearance the area or the AONB, and there have been no objections from third parties, these are neutral considerations that do not weigh in favour of the proposal. Rather, I find that the appeal scheme would represent inappropriate development that would be harmful to the Green Belt, which in accordance with paragraph 148 of the Framework should be given substantial weight. I find that the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, in terms of a loss to openness and inappropriateness that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development in the Green Belt do not exist. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with policies CP3 of the CS, which seek to protect the Green Belt, along with the Green Belt objectives of the Framework.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3