Warwick District Council appeal evidence
Refused for inappropriate Green Belt development in Warwick?
Compare selected Green Belt examples on exceptions, restricted fallback development and garage scale.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 33 of 104
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 10
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 23
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 29
- of 33 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: Warwick LPA (52.31002, −1.584674). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Warwick District Council appeal findings
Warwick Green Belt exceptions and openness
The displayed examples lean toward allowed appeals unlike the matched local set; several allowed extracts give conclusions without their underlying analysis.
Counted against appeals
A larger garage reduced openness
Scale outweighed the screening
Although partly screened, the garage would be visibly larger from the site and slightly reduce Green Belt openness in visual and spatial terms. The Inspector gave this harm substantial weight.
Helped or needed
Exceptions and a restricted fallback
A Framework exception applied
The extracts state that the proposals fell within a Framework exception or met its requirement, so the Inspector concluded they were not inappropriate Green Belt development.
Restrictions changed the fallback
Stated restrictions prevented a more harmful fallback development. The Inspector concluded that this clearly outweighed the identified Green Belt harm.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the notice identify visual, spatial or both forms of lost openness?
- Does your proposal fit a stated Green Belt exception?
- What evidence shows a restricted alternative would cause greater harm?
The restricted-fallback example is site-specific, while several allowed extracts state conclusions without the underlying analysis. 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
4 examples
1 February 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
It follows that it would fall within the exception permitted by paragraph 154c of the Framework and would not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Therefore, I find no conflict would arise with policy DS18 or H14 of the LP insofar as they seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4
20 January 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
proposed demolition of an existing garage in the garden and erection of a larger garden room / home office on the plot.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposal would fall within the exception in Framework paragraph 149 c) and would not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would therefore comply with Policy DS18 of the LP.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
9 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing storage building and erection of replacement forestry storage building.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Having regard to the submissions, the main issues are: • 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; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development meets the requirement of paragraph 154 d) of the Framework and would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Moreover, it would be in accordance with WDLP Policy DS18.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
23 February 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey detached garage and garden maintenance store with walled courtyard.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: -whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including the effect on openness of the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; and -if the development is inappropriate, 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 required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be inappropriate development in the terms set out by the Framework and would result in a harmful loss of openness to the Green Belt. The Framework requires that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. However, the restrictions within the UU would prevent a more harmful fallback development occurring. This would clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and harm to openness and would therefore amount to the very special circumstances necessary to approve the development.
Paragraph 25 · Source page 5
Dismissed appeal examples
1 example
10 January 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing garage and construction of new garage.
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 Framework and development plan policy; • 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 page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed garage would also generally retain the existing pattern of development at the property and would be partly screened by the existing hedge and dwelling. However, from within the appeal site it would clearly be larger than the existing building. While it would still be seen as part of the collection of domestic buildings, due to its scale it would result in a slight 1 APP/T3725/D/20/3260588 reduction in openness in both visual and spatial terms. Given the extremely localised change the harm to the openness of the Green Belt in this area would be minimal, however having regard to the Framework it is a matter which carries substantial weight.
Paragraph 10 · Source pages 2, 3