Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused for inappropriate Green Belt development in Wigan Metropolitan?
See the Green Belt concerns in the selected examples and facts to test against 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
- 7 of 47
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 6
- of 7 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: Wigan LPA (53.52417, −2.589574). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council appeal findings
Why domestic benefits did not outweigh Green Belt harm
The matched local set has no allowed comparator. Selected example 78220 is edge-of-scope, so direct Green Belt evidence is limited.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt harm in selected dismissals
Garden extension towards open fields
Minimal visual effect did not remove the concern where a summer house projected further into the garden towards open fields, causing moderate spatial-openness harm.
Several domestic benefits fell short
Domestic land management, incorporation into the home, invasive-plant removal and permitted fencing did not clearly outweigh identified Green Belt harm.
Personal storage carried limited weight
Additional domestic storage was a personal benefit, but had limited weight against Green Belt harm and harm to the area’s character and appearance.
No allowed example matched
No allowed local example
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Show more than domestic benefits
The selected dismissal shows that domestic use, land management and permitted fencing did not establish very special circumstances against the total Green Belt harm.
Address spatial openness
A minimal visual effect did not settle the issue when the summer house extended further into the garden towards open fields.
Personal benefit needed more weight
Additional storage was treated as a personal benefit with limited weight against Green Belt and character-and-appearance harm.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify lost openness, encroachment or urban sprawl?
- Does it say the building projects further towards open fields?
- What evidence goes beyond domestic storage, garden use or permitted fencing?
Selected example 78220 is mainly about highway safety, not Green Belt inappropriateness. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Read the reasoning in matched appeal decisions
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.
Dismissed appeal examples
5 examples
27 October 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a “garden shed bicycle storage, turbo trainer (indoor bike apparatus), DIY use, router table, table saw, drill press, band saw.”
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues of the appeal are: • Whether the 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; • The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; 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 development provides the appellant with additional domestic storage which would be a personal benefit. I give this benefit limited weight in favour of the development, however it does not outweigh the substantial weight that I am required to give to any harm to the Green Belt and any other harm resulting from the proposal, which in this case is harm to the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 24 · Source page 4
2 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the extension to garden.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it; • 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 other considerations, including the management of the land for domestic purposes, its containment and incorporation into the residential property, the removal of an invasive plant, and the erection of the boundary fencing and gate as a permitted means of enclosure, do not clearly outweigh the totality of harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness, through its failure to preserve openness, encroachment into the countryside and urban sprawl that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 3
8 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
[address]
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; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • whether any harm by reasons 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 proposed summer house would be sited to the rear of the bungalow, largely out of view, and looking back from the open field it would be seen alongside the varied rear elevations of dwellings along this side of [address]. Therefore, in visual terms its effect on openness would be minimal. However, although the ridgeline of the eaves would be below the gable of its host, and it would extend across only part of the rear elevation, the summer house would nevertheless project further into the garden than the existing bungalow and toward the open fields beyond the boundary. Consequently, it would result in a moderate level of harm to the spatial openness of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
22 November 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey extension at the rear and first floor extension over the existing dining room.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues 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 policies; b) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and c) the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with reference to outlook and sunlight.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Turning to part (c) of UDP Policy GB1B, paragraph 154(c) of the Framework does not require an extension to a building to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. If an extension is found to not be inappropriate in the Green Belt, it cannot be regarded as harmful to either openness or the purposes1. Consequently, part (c) is inconsistent with paragraph 154(c) of the Framework and therefore the provisions of the Framework outweigh it.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
20 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appeal site is in the Green Belt. The Council considers that the proposed development would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt, on the grounds that it would not result in a disproportionate addition. I find no reason to consider otherwise. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposal upon highway safety.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, I find that increased parking demand would not be safely accommodated within the vicinity of the proposed development without an unacceptable risk to highway safety. This conflicts with the PN and the [address] [name] 2019, which, when taken together, seek to ensure that extensions which increase off-street parking demand do not result in detriment to highway safety, taking into account the availability of convenient and safe off-street parking.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3