West Lancashire Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over an inappropriate Green Belt proposal in West Lancashire?
See the Green Belt objections in selected examples and the size, scale and layout that kept one extension from being inappropriate.
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 62
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 23
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 27
- 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: West Lancashire LPA (53.609608, −2.882526). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
West Lancashire Borough Council appeal findings
West Lancashire Green Belt extension limits
The selected examples do not mirror the matched local set’s outcome mix. Appeal 68609 also includes access changes. Its cited passage concerns Green Belt harm.
Counted against appeals
Where extensions harmed the Green Belt
Inappropriate development and openness harm
The rear bungalow extension was found inappropriate, with further harm to Green Belt openness.
Private benefits did not outweigh harm
Extra living space and different bedroom access were private benefits, not enough to outweigh Green Belt harm.
Helped or needed
When Green Belt development was not inappropriate
Within the plot’s built form
The rear and link extensions fit within the plot’s existing built form and appeared subordinate.
No openness harm was found
The decision concluded that the replacement garage was not inappropriate and would not harm openness or Green Belt purposes.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify size, scale, projection or layout?
- Does it say how the proposal would harm Green Belt openness?
- Does the refusal explain why your stated benefits do not outweigh Green Belt harm?
The replacement-garage example (53259) gives only the Inspector’s conclusion, not the detailed reasoning behind it. 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
2 examples
13 February 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
construction of a single storey extension to the rear.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt with regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, I find that the proposed single storey rear extension, and link extension, as a result of their size, scale, projection and layout would be confined to within the existing width and height of the built form on this plot. Consequently, I find that the extension would appear as a subordinate feature and would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Therefore, I conclude that the extension would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
1 July 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as a ‘replacement garage - alternative to 2022/0698/FUL.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues of this 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; 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 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and it would accord with Policy GN1 of the LP, along with the guidance in paragraph 154c) of the Framework and policy GB4 of the SPD. It follows that it would not be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes of including land within it.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
1 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the single storey extension to rear of existing detached bungalow.
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 clearly outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt and further harm would arise as to openness. The Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm arising from the proposal is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
17 August 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to erect first floor extension above garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are whether the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the effect on the openness of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Paragraph 148 of the Framework requires that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. It advises that the very special circumstances required to justify the approval of inappropriate development 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. The benefits to be derived from the proposal in terms of increased living accommodation and the provision of a different access to the bedroom over the snug would be private benefits that would not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. These do not, therefore, amount to the very special circumstances needed to justify a grant of permission in this appeal. Accordingly, I find that the proposal conflicts with LP Policy GN1 and with the Green Belt policies in part 13 of the Framework.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 4
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
28 April 2025 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
described as the demolition of existing conservatory and new single storey extension to rear and side of the existing dwelling. Rearrange the existing driveway and form new access off [address] to improve the safety of access and egress allowing for exiting the site in a forward gear.
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; • 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 pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed extensions would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. In accordance with the Framework substantial weight must be given to any harm to the Green Belt and very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal is clearly outweighed by such considerations.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 4