Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused for inappropriate Green Belt development in Welwyn Hatfield?
The selected examples show why Green Belt schemes failed locally and what supported an allowed garage extension.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 27 of 112
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 24
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 26
- of 28 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: Welwyn Hatfield LPA (51.766929, −0.194096). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council appeal findings
When Green Belt additions became inappropriate
The selected examples include an allowed garage extension, but their outcome mix differs from the matched local set. Several extracts give conclusions only.
Counted against appeals
What made Green Belt additions fail
Roof bulk reduced openness
The dormer and roof-profile scheme increased building size and roof bulk, causing a noticeable loss of openness despite vegetation and limited wider views.
Limited openness harm still mattered
The conclusion recorded limited openness harm and gave the total Green Belt harm substantial weight.
Other considerations had modest weight
The conclusion treated the other considerations as carrying, at best, moderate weight against Green Belt harm.
Helped or needed
What helped the garage extension
Not a disproportionate addition
Evidence and site observations led the Inspector to find the garage extension was not disproportionate to the original building.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say your scheme is disproportionate to the original building?
- Does it identify how footprint, height or roof bulk reduces openness?
- Does it explain why your claimed benefits do not outweigh the harm?
The dormer example also covers other planning issues, so only its Green Belt passages are used. 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
16 October 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
extension to existing 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 Framework and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, irrespective of which structure is considered to be the original building for these purposes and even if the proposed extension was considered to result in an increase in the size of the original building of more than 50%, based on the considerations set out in Policy SADM 34 of the Local Plan, the evidence before me and my observations on site, it would not be a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. It would therefore not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would accord with Policy SADM 34 of the LP and the associated provisions of the Framework, which seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. Given the proposed extension would not be inappropriate development, in this case, there is no need for me to consider its impact on openness.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
9 February 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of a first floor rear extension incorporating a roof light and front porch.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues raised in respect of this appeal are: - a) 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 polices; b) The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and c) Whether harm by reason of inappropriateness would be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal?
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, I have identified that the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined by the Framework and would conflict with Policy RA3 of the District Plan. Furthermore, the proposal would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt as required by the Framework. The proposed development would by definition, be harmful to the Green Belt, harm which the Framework indicates should be given substantial weight. In contrast, the other considerations, at best, hold moderate weight.
Paragraph 20 · Source pages 3, 4
28 January 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a ground floor rear extension, installation of new dormer window to rear elevation, replacement of existing window reveal detailing, removal of existing front door and porch and installation of new window, reinstatement of original front door, replacement of timber windows to match original, blocking up existing window on side elevation at first floor level, alterations to window sizes on rear elevation at first floor level, installation of Velux rooflight and internal alterations.
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 (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies. • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area, having regard to its conservation area status; and • 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 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Its impact on openness in this location would be limited. The Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and that development should not be approved except in very special circumstances.In addition, the proposal would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the ECA. Even when taken together, the other considerations in this case would not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy SADM34 of the Local Plan and guidance contained in the Framework relating to Green Belts.
Paragraph 26 · Source page 5
27 July 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “loft conversion with rear dormer and front skylights, Juliet balcony and change of roof profile. Ground floor windows and bi-folding door”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in regard to both appeals are: - whether the developments 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 developments on the openness of the Green Belt, 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 proposals.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposals in both appeals would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful. They would therefore conflict with Welwyn Hatfield District Plan (WHDP) Policies GSBP1 and RA3, as well as emerging DWHLP Policy SADM34 and the provisions of the Framework. Together these define the Green Belt and set out that extensions to existing dwellings in the Green Belt will only be permitted where they individually or when considered with existing or approved extensions, would not result in a disproportionate increase in the size of the dwelling. Openness 10.Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt that has spatial as well as visual aspects. The developments proposed in both appeals would increase Appeal Decisions APP/C1950/D/22/3303852 & APP/C1950/D/22/3299572 the size of the existing building. The Appeal A proposal would increase the volume, and therefore bulk of the roof structure, if not the overall footprint of the building. It would therefore lead to a noticeable increase in the size of the appeal property. Despite the level of vegetation around the appeal property, and the lack of wider public views of the rear of the property, it would lead to the harmful loss of openness which is currently afforded by the hipped roof design, between the appeal property and those neighbouring it. 11.Furthermore, although the Appeal B proposal would infill an existing recess within the front elevation of the appeal property, it would nevertheless increase the size of the building overall and would reduce the visual articulation of the front elevation. It would therefore also lead to a loss of openness, albeit this would be limited given the scale of the proposal. 12.This harmful loss of openness would lead to conflict with WHDP Policy RA3 and DWHLP Policy SADM3 which state that planning applications in the Green Belt will be considered in line with the provisions of the Framework, and Paragraph 137 of the Framework states that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to keep land permanently open. Other considerations 13.It is not disputed between the main parties that the proposals would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, the effect of the proposals upon the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, and any effects upon parking provision are also not matters of dispute. However, even if I were to agree that the proposals were acceptable in these respects, these would be only neutral factors which would not weigh in favour of the schemes. 14.The appellant has highlighted that the following the implementation of the proposals, that the appeal property would be of a similar scale to other nearby properties, which have also been previously extended. However, my attention has not been drawn to specific examples of previous approvals or details provided. In any event, the consideration of any such examples would have been based on the specific circumstances of each case, which are unlikely to be directly comparable to the circumstances of the appeal which is before me, and I therefore afford this only limited weight. 15.I acknowledge that the proposals would allow the appellant to provide additional family living accommodation, however I have been provided with no substantive evidence with regard to any personal circumstances which would lead me to conclude that this need could not be met by other means. Accordingly, I afford this only very minor weight in my considerations. 16.It is indicated that the proposal would use energy efficient materials. Given the scale of the proposals, and the limited detail that has been provided with regard to the specification of the proposed materials, I afford this minimal weight in favour of the schemes.
Paragraph 9 · Source pages 2, 3
28 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of double garage, shed and side and rear extensions, construction of replacement two-storey side extension to both sides of the property, incorporating double garage and single-storey rear extension with balcony over.
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 and purposes 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 necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. There would be no harm to the Green Belt purposes, however there would be limited harm to the openness of the Green Belt. In line with Paragraph 144 of the Framework the totality of the Green Belt harm attracts substantial weight. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 4