Warrington Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in Warrington?
See the Green Belt harm inspectors found and what the allowed examples concluded.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 25 of 90
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 19
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 24
- of 25 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: Warrington LPA (53.398836, −2.56361). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Warrington Borough Council appeal findings
Green Belt additions: openness and disproportionate size
The selected examples have a higher share of allowed decisions than the matched local set, so their outcome mix is not typical.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt concerns in dismissed examples
Garage reduced Green Belt openness
For the detached garage, the Inspector concluded it was inappropriate development and would reduce Green Belt openness.
No positive support from no harm
The absence of design, amenity and heritage harm did not weigh in the proposal’s favour.
Helped or needed
Allowed Green Belt findings
Addition was not disproportionate
Although it missed the SPD’s statistical measurements, the Inspector found the additions were not disproportionate.
No harm to openness concluded
The extract records only the conclusion that the front extension and loft conversion would not harm openness or Green Belt purposes.
Dormer not inappropriate
The extract records only the conclusion that the replacement dormer was not inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal call your proposal inappropriate development in the Green Belt?
- Does it say how the proposal would reduce Green Belt openness?
- Does it explain why your addition is disproportionate, rather than just citing measurements?
Some selected extracts give only conclusions, and appeal 65511 concerns non-Green Belt matters. 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
22 March 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for erection of two storey front extension, loft conversion with rear facing dormer and hip to gable alterations to roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and development plan policy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, for the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that given my findings, it would not be harmful to openness or Green Belt purposes.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
9 September 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolition of the existing coach house and front porch and erection of a new front porch, new single-storey extension in lieu of existing coach house and loft conversion with rear dormers.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Whilst the proposal would not be in strict accordance with the SPD in terms of statistical measurements, from my findings above I have still found that the proposals would not be disproportionate additions. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would accord with Policies CC1 and CS5 of the [name] (2014), and the provisions of the Framework.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
17 September 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
replacement dormer extension to front of dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In light of the above factors, I conclude that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would be consistent with Local Plan Policy GB1, which gives support to proposals which comply with national policy contained in the Framework.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
3 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: (i) 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; (ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and (iii) whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Other than on Green Belt grounds, there are no objections to the proposal. However, the absence of harm in other respects is not a positive consideration as acceptability in design and amenity terms is to be expected. The Council identifies [site address] as a non-designated heritage asset and on the information available to me [site address] has heritage significance in terms of its history, form and detailing. The Framework is clear than the effect of an application on a non-designated heritage asset must be taken into account in determining the application and that a balanced judgment will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the asset. I note that the Council do not raise any due concerns in relation to any detrimental impact upon the character of the heritage asset. Given its design would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing building, I concur with this assessment. I conclude that the significance of [site address] as a non -designated heritage asset would be unharmed. However, the lack of harm in this respect does not weigh in favour of the proposal.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
16 April 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
detached garage.
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; • If the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This is harmful by definition and to which I attach substantial weight. The proposal would reduce the Green Belt’s openness, which gives rise to additional harm. The considerable harm renders the proposal contrary to the requirements of the Council’s development plan policies and in conflict with the Framework.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4