Wiltshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over an inappropriate Green Belt proposal in Wiltshire?
See Green Belt concerns in the selected examples and what the allowed extract actually says.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 5 of 127
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 4
- of 5 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: Wiltshire LPA (51.300637, −1.947286). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Wiltshire Council appeal findings
Green Belt harm and the very special circumstances test
The allowed selected example, appeal 85510, gives only a conclusion rather than supporting reasoning.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt concerns in dismissed examples
Inappropriate development and openness
The selected dismissed examples treated inappropriate development as Green Belt harm. Appeal 27609 also found harm to openness.
Other considerations had to outweigh harm
The dismissed extracts say other considerations had to clearly outweigh Green Belt harm. Appeal 21449 also refers to openness and a Green Belt purpose.
Helped or needed
Allowed Green Belt conclusion
Not inappropriate development
The allowed extract concludes that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It does not explain why.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal call your proposal inappropriate development in the Green Belt?
- Does it identify harm to Green Belt openness or a Green Belt purpose?
- Does it say why other considerations clearly outweigh Green Belt harm?
Appeal 21449 includes a landscape issue outside this Green Belt review. 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
6 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
an application for full planning permission for a single storey self-build dwelling and associated works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • whether the location of the development accords with policies of the development plan for new residential development; • 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 effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the proposal would provide an acceptable living environment to future occupiers, with particular regard to privacy; and • the effects on the Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bat Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
In view of the above, the proposal would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt under the terms of the Framework.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
19 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
rooflights to front and rear roof plans, single storey wraparound extension (side and rear) and construction of outbuilding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this case are: ● whether the proposal is inappropriate development for the purposes of the Framework1 and any other relevant development plan policies. ● the effect on the openness of the Green Belt. ● the effect on the character and appearance of the area. ● 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 necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude on this issue that the proposal would be inappropriate development which, by definition, is harmful to the Green Belt. Any other harm
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
3 February 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
removal of existing house roof, build new replacement roof, addition of first floor to building within new roof space, garage conversion and house refurbishment to ground floor.
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); • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and, • if there is harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would it be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have found that the proposal would be inappropriate development that would harm openness. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It advises 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, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
4 October 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Erection of a two-storey side extension, replacement of existing windows and over cladding the rear of the existing property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; • whether the proposed development would conserve or enhance the natural beauty of the landscape within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; 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 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Paragraph 148 of 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, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. I turn now to address other considerations that, potentially, might clearly outweigh harm arising from inappropriate development in the Green Belt, taking in to account the erosion of openness and the conflict with one of the purposes of the Green Belt, so as to provide the very special circumstances required to justify a grant of planning permission.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
15 June 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘demolition of existing porch and conservatory, and construction of a single storey extension and entrance link to existing house’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main parties agree that the appeal site is located within the Green Belt. As such, the main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including any impact on openness, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • Would 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 proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Other considerations weighing in favour of the development must clearly outweigh this harm. Principal among these are permitted development rights, removal of unsympathetic additions and no specifically identified harm to the Conservation Area. [name] acknowledge these, and all other considerations put forward by the appellant, Paragraph 144 makes clear that all development in the Green Belt is subject to stringent national planning policy tests, which I have applied.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4