Appeal 6005476

The appeal is dismissed.

After the planning application was lodged with the Council, but before they made their formal planning decision, the Council adopted a List of Locally Listed Heritage Assets (December 2025) (“The Local List”) document. The appeal site is included within this document, Asset reference: WK010A, and the publication of the Local List formalised the status of the assets contained within it.

The decision maker must take into account all considerations existing at the time the decision is made even if those considerations were recently introduced. The Local List is therefore a material consideration to which I must have due regard. Both main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the Local List during this appeal process, and I have considered all comments in coming to my

The main issues therefore are: • Whether the appeal 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 appeal proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the area including the significance of 1 and [site address] as a non-designated heritage asset; 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.

The appeal site lies within the Green Belt. Paragraph 154 of the Framework explains that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the listed exceptions apply. Relevant to this appeal is exception 154(c), namely the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

The Council has submitted evidence showing the appeal property has been extended incrementally in the past and this includes development in the 1990s and 2000s. The Appellant’s own figures state that the footprint of the original building has been extended by 122%, the floor area of the original building by 118.5% and the volume of the original building by 63.7%. The proposed carport would cumulatively extend the footprint to 153% over the original, the floor area to 138% over the original and the volume to 74.5% over the original. These would be significant increases; however, the assessment goes beyond a mathematical exercise and the change in scale, volume and built form over and above the original building also needs consideration.

The proposed extension would provide a single-storey open carport to the frontage of No 2. It would be of generous width, sitting forward of the dwelling’s building line, and it would incorporate an open gable end to one roof plane and hipped roofing to the remaining three planes. Visually it would read as a structure, albeit open, it would still enclose space. Taking all these factors together, the width, height, and depth of the proposal would significantly add scale, volume and built form. Therefore, and from the evidence and what I saw at the site visit, the proposed extension would disproportionately increase volume, floorspace, and the footprint of the building over and above the size of the original building.

In conclusion, the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development which is harmful to the Green Belt as it would amount to a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. Any harm to the Green Belt carries substantial weight and conflicts with Policy CS6 of the [name] 2012 (“the CS”) and Policy DM13 of the Woking Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2016 (“the [name]”), as well as the Framework.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework states that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

Openness has both a spatial dimension and a visual aspect. There is no formal definition of openness but, in the context of the Green Belt, it is generally held to refer to an absence of development. The proposed development would be subservient to the host dwelling as a detached, single storey open sided carport building. It would sit within an existing residential frontage near to the existing dwelling and storage area. Its lightweight design also means views would be more permeable under the roof than a traditional enclosed building. That said, it would still incorporate timber posts to support the roof, and the roof would be of a solid construction to three sides with an open gable end.

Taking these design features in the round, the proposed development would be experienced as a building which encloses space albeit not as significantly as a building with solid walls. Nonetheless, it would introduce additional built form to a part of the site that is currently open and it would also have a readily perceptible roof design by reason of its height, width, depth, and solid construction to three sides. All these factors as a matter of fact and degree would result in a loss of openness.

I appreciate the existing front boundary wall, storage area and the host dwelling would mitigate some visual impacts regarding openness both in short and longer-range views. However, given the existing site characteristics, including the height of the wall and storage area, as well as the positioning of the host dwelling to the lane, the proposed development would still be visible from public viewpoints. Even if it was not, openness is protected for its own sake regardless of public viewpoints. Taken together the spatial and visual impacts of the proposal would result in a reduction in openness, and this would cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt in conflict with Policy DM13 of the [name], as well as the Framework. This harm carries substantial weight.

The appeal building forms one half of a pair of late nineteenth century semi-detached dwellinghouses, 1 and 2, [site address] , of buff and red brick construction, with white framed windows under a plain tile roof. A red brick wall runs along the frontage of No 2, and a low-level storage area can be found to the northeast corner of the appeal site.

The appeal site is located within a small pocket of dwellings which front [site address] and a sewage works sited nearby. Beyond this, the character of the wider area is defined by relatively flat and open landscapes with mature vegetation defining the fields as well as denser sections of woodland occurring within the landscape. These features give the wider area a countryside quality despite the small pocket of dwellings and sewage works.

The built character of the immediate area is defined by broadly open frontages where dwellings, particularly Nos 1 and [address]. The appeal building is also identified as a non-designated heritage asset in the Council’s published Local List. The Council identify it as having group value with the other pair of cottages, and it is also identified as having social and cultural value as part of Woking’s industrial history via its association with the sewage works.

The proposed carport would be sited in front of the existing appeal property and behind the existing storage area when viewed from [site address] . Given its proposed height and solid roof design the proposed carport would be considerably taller than the storage area and front wall. Therefore, the roof section of the open sided carport would be readily apparent as a structure forward of the host building and close to the lane albeit separated by the storage area.

The existing spacing between the frontage of No 2 and [site address] creates valuable relief between the cottage frontage and the lane. While the storage area already interrupts this space, its modest height reduces its visual impact. The proposed carport would, however, be taller and while its sides would be open, it would have a solid roof. As a result, it would significantly close the currently open space between the frontage of the dwelling and the lane creating a visually cramped frontage harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

I appreciate that 4 [site address] ([address] Cottages) already has a carport and a garage which is set forward from the host building toward the lane. However, this is broadly different to the appeal as No 4 is set further back from the lane than the appeal property. There is more space to the frontage of No 4 and as a result it does not read in the same way as the appeal site. This, therefore, has limited bearing on my overall decision.

The existing carport at 1 [site address] Cottages is set behind the catslide roof of the dwellinghouse. Accordingly, it does not have the same effect as the appeal proposal. It is also suggested that the proposed carport would be reversable, but the same could be said of any structure which is removed or demolished at some point in the future. Limited evidence has been submitted to demonstrate its temporary / reversable nature. This, therefore, does not alter my overall findings.

While no changes to the historic fabric of the cottage are proposed, the broadly solid roof of the carport, in combination with its height, width, length and proximity to the lane, including its timber piers, would disrupt and partially obscure visibility of the appeal cottage frontage, including the earlier nineteenth century catslide roof. This would not be sympathetic to the existing character of broadly open frontages where the appeal dwelling faces the lane.

Additionally, heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and consequently, the significance of this heritage asset and the ability to fully appreciate it would be unacceptably harmed by the proposed carport as it would obscure views of the appeal dwelling including the nineteenth century elements.

The heritage of Nos.1 and 2 is disputed by the Appellant who suggests they are not cottages associated with the sewage works but rather farm workers cottages by the estate of [name]. The Appellant has, however, submitted no evidence to robustly demonstrate this to be the case. On this basis, the evidence continues to point toward the cottages being associated with the sewage works. Even if they were not, they are historic cottages which tell a story, the Appellant has not clearly shown that they should not be heritage assets. I say this as the age of the buildings and any potential agricultural history as suggested by the Appellant could also be of heritage interest. In any event, much of the harm I have identified relates to the character and appearance of the host building, which would be sustained even if the building were not locally listed. The local listing accordingly compounds this harm.

Concluding on this main issue, the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area including the significance of Nos 1 and 2, [site address] as a non-designated heritage asset, would be unacceptable and this harm carries substantial weight. The proposed development would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies CS20, CS21 and CS24 of the CS and Policy DM20 of the [name]. These, amongst other things, look to promote attractive, high-quality design which would be of an appropriate scale, height, massing, proportion, and form.

The proposed carport would provide safe, weather protected parking. This would prolong the life of a vehicle, and this benefit carries moderate positive weight. The Appellant also suggests that the carport will reduce roadside parking, however, the existing frontage of the appeal property is open and currently offers surface parking. Indeed, at the time of my site visit a vehicle was parked in the space where the carport is proposed. Therefore, it has not been clearly demonstrated that there would be any off-street parking gain from this proposed development. This therefore carries neutral weight. The absence of harm elsewhere such as living conditions of neighbours and flood risk are also neutral considerations which neither weigh for or against the development proposal.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. ‘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.

I have concluded that the appeal scheme constitutes inappropriate development and would, therefore, be harmful to the Green Belt. I have also found harm to the openness of the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the area including the significance of Nos 1 and 2, [site address] as a non-designated heritage asset. These matters in combination carry substantial weight.

The other considerations are of moderate and neutral weight in favour of the appeal proposal. Consequently, these considerations do not clearly outweigh the substantial weight I have given to the identified harm, either individually or collectively, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify

The proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole and for this reason the appeal should be dismissed. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate a decision should be made contrary to this conclusion.