Wakefield Metropolitan District Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt inappropriateness in Wakefield Metropolitan?
Use the selected examples to compare Green Belt concerns and extension-scale facts with your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 11 of 84
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 9
- of 11 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: Wakefield LPA (53.660681, −1.411806). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Wakefield Metropolitan District Council appeal findings
Wakefield Green Belt decisions on inappropriate development
The selected examples have a higher share of allowed appeals than the matched local set, so they do not mirror its outcome mix.
Counted against appeals
Where Green Belt harm counted against proposals
Harm to openness and countryside
The detached bungalow was found inappropriate, with harm to openness and countryside encroachment given substantial negative weight.
Character harm added to Green Belt harm
The two-storey extension was found inappropriate and harmful to the area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Extensions that were not disproportionate
An exception applied
The first-floor front extension met an exception and was not inappropriate, so no case for very special circumstances was required.
All additions were assessed together
Together, the enlarged extension and prior additions were not disproportionate over the original building.
Only a small overall increase
The proposed annex extension would cause only a very small overall increase in building scale and was not disproportionate.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say your proposal is inappropriate Green Belt development?
- Have you compared every existing and approved addition with the original building?
- Does the notice identify harm to openness or countryside encroachment?
The selected Wakefield Metropolitan examples include extensions and a detached bungalow, so their site facts may differ from yours. 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
31 March 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
first floor front extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether or not the appeal scheme is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As such, I find that the proposal would comply with the exception set out in Policy D23 and the Framework and so would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It follows that the proposal would not be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt or to the purposes of including land within it. A case for very special circumstances is not therefore required.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
22 May 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
resubmission of approved application ref: 25/00590/FUL (Single storey extension to front. 1.5 storey extension and two-storey infill extension to rear. Replacement fenestrations and changes to openings front and rear and rooflight to front) to increase the size of the front extension and include a flue to the rear.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed 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 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Judging the proposal on its individual merits, I therefore consider that the proposed enlarged extension, together with the existing and previously approved additions to the dwelling, would not amount to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Thus, by according with the relevant part of Policy LP62 and benefiting from the exception in paragraph 154 c) of the Framework, the proposal would not constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
21 August 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the conversion of an outbuilding and construction of cedar-clad extension to replace the existing pergola to form an annex and garden room to the main dwelling house.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are whether the proposal would amount to inappropriate development within the Green Belt; whether there would be any other harm to the Green Belt; whether it would result in harm to the setting of heritage assets; and 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 necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Based on the above, the extension proposed would result in only a very small increase in the scale of buildings overall, calculated by the appellants to be a 7% volume increase. On this basis, the proposed extension would not constitute a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. The proposal would not therefore represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Policy LP62(2)(a) of the Local Plan (2024)(LP) accepts limited, small-scale development in the Green Belt including extensions and alterations that are not disproportionate over and above the size of the existing building(s) when originally constructed. There would therefore be no conflict with this policy or the similar requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. As the proposal would not represent inappropriate development, openness does not need to be considered further and very special circumstances are not needed to justify the development.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
30 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
detached bungalow.
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, including any relevant effects on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed dwelling on neighbouring trees; • whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupants, with particular reference to indoor and outdoor environments; • whether the proposal would make suitable provision for the disposal of foul water; and, • 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which would harm its openness and conflict with the purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. As such, the Framework requires that I give this harm substantial negative weight. In addition, I have found that the scheme would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, would not demonstrate that adequate foul drainage infrastructure would be available, and would not demonstrate that its effect on trees would be acceptable. These matters attract further negative weight.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
18 June 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
two storey side extension, first floor side extension, garage conversion, whole house render, demolition of existing 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’) (2023) and any relevant development plan policies; • 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 • 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 necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In summary, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt in the terms set out by the Framework. The Framework requires that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances, which will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The proposal would also cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, and I afford this moderate weight.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4