Wirral Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt additions in Wirral?
See how the selected examples treated extension size, openness and screening before you check the 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
- 11 of 77
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 11
- of 11 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: Wirral LPA (53.368366, −3.092728). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Wirral Borough Council appeal findings
Why Wirral Green Belt additions were disproportionate
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set and use only short extracts.
Counted against appeals
Concerns over Green Belt additions
More built form
A larger rear extension replacing a conservatory added built form and caused a limited loss of spatial openness.
Harm not outweighed
For a first-floor rear extension, other considerations did not clearly outweigh inappropriate development and harm to Green Belt openness.
Additions beyond original size
A front extension was disproportionate over the original building despite limited direct spatial and visual loss of openness.
Helped or needed
What helped Green Belt extensions
Existing footprint and height
A first-floor rear extension stayed within the dwelling’s footprint and height, and was not judged disproportionate in size.
Rear screening and design
A rear extension used matching materials and a subservient design. Mature hedges and fences kept little of it visible outside the site.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the notice say your addition is disproportionate to the original building?
- Does it identify added built form or a loss of spatial openness?
- Are your footprint, height and screening described accurately in the refusal?
Appeal 75531 focuses on open character and visibility, so it sits at the edge of this Green Belt inappropriateness page. 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
26 September 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
First floor rear extension to provide additional bedroom with ensuite and inverted balcony, together with an additional dormer window on the front elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, if so, whether other considerations exist that clearly outweigh the harm to openness and any other harms which would arise from the development, or, • if the development is not inappropriate, the effect of the proposed development on the existing dwelling and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be contained within the existing footprint and building height, and although partly visible in the street scene, it would be located within an established area of residential development, and I consider its impact on openness would therefore be negligible. [name] have no calculations by which to compare volumes, and it is likely that further additions beyond what is currently proposed would be cumulatively disproportionate, on balance I conclude the proposed extension would not be disproportionate in size, and therefore it would be not-inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
1 September 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the area; 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 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The design and facing materials of the proposal would reflect the host property and would have a subservient appearance that would not aesthetically compete with it. Additionally, it would be located to the rear of the dwelling in an area where, due to the mature hedges and fences that enclose it, very little of the proposal would be visible from outside of the appeal site. Consequently, it would not be prominent or incongruous within the street scene and would not materially diminish the open character of this part of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
8 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing conservatory and erection of single-storey rear extension with first-floor level roof terrace.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the appeal 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 appeal 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 required to justify the appeal proposal.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As the appeal proposal would be larger than the conservatory that it would replace, it would introduce additional built form to the site and would result in a limited loss of spatial openness. In addition, as it would be at the rear of the dwelling and largely hidden from all but very close views from within the appeal site and adjoining properties, the harm to the visual openness of the Green Belt would be minimal. It would not, however, result in encroachment into the countryside or otherwise harm the five purposes of the Green Belt.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
7 November 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a first-floor rear extension (revised scheme of refused application APP/21/00431).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appeal site is within the Green Belt so the main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) • the effect upon the openness of the Green Belt; and • if the proposal is found to be inappropriate development, 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 development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Paragraph 148 of the Framework says that ‘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. The other considerations do not clearly outweigh the totality of the substantial harm that arises as a result of the development’s inappropriateness and its impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. The very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not therefore exist.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
26 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single-storey front extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Flowing from the reason for refusal on the decision notice, the main issues are: (i) Whether the proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt; and (ii) If the development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt, 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 page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I find that the proposed extension would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The proposal would therefore amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and conflict with UDP Policy GB5, SPG11, the WLP and the Framework. Yet, given its design and position within the existing setting, the proposed extension would not conflict with any of the Green Belt purposes listed in the Framework and the direct loss of openness caused by it in spatial and visual terms would be limited.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3