England-wide appeal evidence
Green Belt inappropriateness in planning appeals
Compare source-linked planning appeal decisions from across England where the Inspector’s main issue matched the fixed “Green Belt inappropriateness” evidence query, by an exact configured phrase or close semantic meaning.
This page compares planning appeal decisions. It is not a count of planning-application refusal reasons and does not predict what would happen in a different case.
- Matched decision families
- 2,055
- 2,056 appeal records represented
- Matched appeal records
- 2,056
- 495 allowed · 1,541 dismissed · 20 other
- Decision-text coverage
- 24,060 of 83,947
- 24,107 of 91,212 current appeal records
Local appeal evidence
Find evidence for your council or planning authority
Choose the council or planning authority that decided the application. Local pages are shown only where the published evidence snapshot meets the evidence and source checks.
Choose from 87 councils and planning authorities
- Amber Valley Borough Council5 matched decision families
- Basildon Borough Council29 matched decision families
- Bath and North East Somerset Council15 matched decision families
- Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council7 matched decision families
- Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council6 matched decision families
- Bracknell Forest Council11 matched decision families
- Brentwood Borough Council16 matched decision families
- Bromsgrove District Council32 matched decision families
- Buckinghamshire Council7 matched decision families
- Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council19 matched decision families
- Central Bedfordshire Council51 matched decision families
- Chelmsford City Council24 matched decision families
- Cherwell District Council6 matched decision families
- Cheshire East Council68 matched decision families
- Cheshire West and Chester Council32 matched decision families
- Chorley Borough Council18 matched decision families
- City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council22 matched decision families
- City of York Council12 matched decision families
- Coventry City Council9 matched decision families
- Dacorum Borough Council37 matched decision families
- Dartford Borough Council18 matched decision families
- Dorset Council23 matched decision families
- East Hertfordshire District Council61 matched decision families
- Elmbridge Borough Council18 matched decision families
- Epping Forest District Council62 matched decision families
- Erewash Borough Council5 matched decision families
- Gedling Borough Council15 matched decision families
- Gravesham Borough Council31 matched decision families
- Guildford Borough Council100 matched decision families
- Hertsmere Borough Council9 matched decision families
- Kirklees Council27 matched decision families
- Leeds City Council25 matched decision families
- Lichfield District Council5 matched decision families
- London Borough of Barnet13 matched decision families
- London Borough of Bromley49 matched decision families
- London Borough of Croydon6 matched decision families
- London Borough of Harrow13 matched decision families
- London Borough of Havering21 matched decision families
- London Borough of Hillingdon5 matched decision families
- London Borough of Sutton5 matched decision families
- Mole Valley District Council27 matched decision families
- North East Derbyshire District Council12 matched decision families
- North Hertfordshire District Council7 matched decision families
- North Somerset Council9 matched decision families
- North Warwickshire Borough Council5 matched decision families
- North Yorkshire Council9 matched decision families
- Northumberland County Council18 matched decision families
- Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council8 matched decision families
- Reigate and Banstead Borough Council13 matched decision families
- Ribble Valley Borough Council7 matched decision families
- Rochford District Council20 matched decision families
- Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council15 matched decision families
- Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead48 matched decision families
- Rugby Borough Council10 matched decision families
- Runnymede Borough Council21 matched decision families
- Sevenoaks District Council52 matched decision families
- Sheffield City Council6 matched decision families
- Shropshire Council8 matched decision families
- Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council19 matched decision families
- South Gloucestershire Council27 matched decision families
- South Oxfordshire District Council8 matched decision families
- South Staffordshire Council15 matched decision families
- Spelthorne Borough Council7 matched decision families
- St Albans City and District Council40 matched decision families
- Stafford Borough Council8 matched decision families
- Staffordshire Moorlands District Council18 matched decision families
- Stratford-on-Avon District Council34 matched decision families
- Surrey Heath Borough Council23 matched decision families
- Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council5 matched decision families
- Tandridge District Council54 matched decision families
- Tewkesbury Borough Council9 matched decision families
- Three Rivers District Council32 matched decision families
- Thurrock Council24 matched decision families
- Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council31 matched decision families
- Uttlesford District Council8 matched decision families
- Wakefield Metropolitan District Council11 matched decision families
- Warrington Borough Council25 matched decision families
- Warwick District Council33 matched decision families
- Waverley Borough Council49 matched decision families
- Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council27 matched decision families
- West Lancashire Borough Council33 matched decision families
- Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council7 matched decision families
- Wiltshire Council5 matched decision families
- Wirral Borough Council11 matched decision families
- Woking Borough Council15 matched decision families
- Wokingham Borough Council5 matched decision families
- Wychavon District Council7 matched decision families
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
4 examples
1 February 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a single storey rear extension.
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 relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
It follows that it would fall within the exception permitted by paragraph 154c of the Framework and would not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Therefore, I find no conflict would arise with policy DS18 or H14 of the LP insofar as they seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4
12 December 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension following demolition of conservatory, two storey side extension following demolition of garage and render to external walls.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed 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.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would be in accordance with the exemption set out in paragraph 154c) of the Framework.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
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
21 October 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single-storey rear extension.
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
I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and to this extent it would not conflict with the Green Belt protection objectives of the Framework and LP Policy GS4. Where development is not inappropriate, it goes without saying that it would not be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and would not conflict with any of the purposes for including land within it.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
1 example
2 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of a detached garage following the demolition of the existing garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this 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 proposal 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 proposal.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The existing garage would be removed, as a result of which the appellant considers that harm to the Green Belt would be very low. However, the existing garage is smaller than the proposed building and located in a more secluded position where it has a limited impact on Green Belt openness. The proposed building by contrast would be larger and more prominently positioned. I therefore accord limited weight to the removal of the existing garage.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3