Uttlesford District Council appeal evidence
Refused as inappropriate development in Uttlesford Green Belt?
Read the cited examples for local Green Belt concerns and the allowed garage conclusion.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 8 of 90
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 8
- of 8 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: Uttlesford LPA (51.934711, 0.279744). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Uttlesford District Council appeal findings
Uttlesford extensions and Green Belt openness
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and the allowed extract is only a conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt harm from visible additions
Drive-aligned extension increased scale
Because of its scale and location by the entrance drive, the extension was visible, increased the house’s scale and added localised harm to Green Belt openness.
Small additions carried limited weight
Although relatively small and within the site envelope, the additions carried limited weight, and the Inspector found Green Belt harm was not clearly outweighed.
Helped or needed
Garage conclusion: no Green Belt harm
Garage found not inappropriate
For the detached garage, the conclusion says it was not inappropriate development and caused no Green Belt harm. The displayed extract gives no supporting analysis.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a visible increase in your house’s scale?
- Are additions contained within the existing site envelope?
- What evidence does the refusal say could clearly outweigh Green Belt harm?
Appeal 70261 also covers the setting of heritage assets. Its Green Belt passage sits at this issue’s edge. 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
31 January 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of detached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the 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 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would not be inappropriate development, and as such, there would be no harm caused to the Green Belt. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would accord with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that I should take a decision other than in accordance with this.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
1 December 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and erection of detached garage.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is 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.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Therefore, it would not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined in the Framework. As such, it would not conflict with relevant requirements in Policies S6, H8 and GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan and the associated [name]. These policies, amongst other things, apply national planning policy within areas designated as Green Belt, limiting the scale of home extensions to those which are limited in size, proportionate to the size of the original building and respectful of its scale.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
4 July 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two storey and single storey side addition to existing dwelling.
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 proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • on the basis that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether any 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 extension would have a spatial impact on the extent and spread of the built form. Due to its scale and location, aligning with the entrance drive, it would be a visible addition, and there would be a notable increase in the scale of the house. The property is situated some distance back from the road, and in the context of the site, existing buildings and mature landscaping, the overall impact on the wider appearance of the Green Belt would be limited. Nonetheless, there would be some localised harm to openness. Accordingly, it adds to the harm to the Green Belt.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
30 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
conversion of existing garage to residential with an upward and rear extension to form annexe.
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 relevant development plan policies. • The effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt. • The effect on the setting of heritage assets. • 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
In terms of the effect on Green Belt openness, given the character of the existing site and its surroundings comprising residential curtilage and adjoining paddocks within which there are a number of existing buildings, including an existing annexe sited immediately to the west of the garage, the effect on openness would be limited. Overall, Green Belt openness would be preserved. In terms of the purposes, given the nature of the site and its location on the edge of a small village, the purpose listed in Framework paragraph 143 (c), to assist safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, is the most relevant one. For similar reasons as stated above, the proposal would not result in any further encroachment of the countryside and in respect of all Green Belt purposes I find that there would be no harmful effect.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
20 October 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of existing side extension and link and erection of a single storey side extension and single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposed extension 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 on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether any harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to very special circumstances to justify it.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On the other hand, it has been demonstrated that the proposed additions would individually be relatively small and have a reduced effect on the Green Belt by being within the envelope of the site. However, these matters are of limited weight in favour of the proposal and the fall-back position would not be of greater harm than the proposed development. Accordingly, in these specific circumstances, I consider that the harm to the Green Belt is not clearly outweighed by other considerations and therefore the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. Accordingly, the proposal fails to adhere to the local and national Green Belt policies I have already outlined.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4