Waverley Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Waverley?
See the selected examples’ stated concerns and the design or site details an Inspector accepted.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 38 of 93
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 10
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 26
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 31
- of 38 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: Waverley LPA (51.149801, −0.63271). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Waverley Borough Council appeal findings
Waverley building changes: design, scale and harm
The selected dismissed examples mostly give a harmful conclusion, not the physical detail behind it, so they offer limited comparison with your refusal.
Counted against appeals
Harm stated in Waverley dismissals
Harm outweighed the extension’s benefit
The Inspector said the extension’s harm to the existing building’s character and appearance outweighed its benefits.
Fence harmed surrounding character
The boundary fence was found to harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Outbuilding found harmful
The Inspector concluded that the detached outbuilding proposal would harm the area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Design and site facts that helped
Mass broken up by design
Materials and detailed design broke up the extension’s mass and created a cohesive appearance for the house.
Proportionate front-elevation changes
The front elevation retained a similar mass, and its angled first-floor windows were proportionate to the house.
A substantial plot for the garage
The garage’s greater bulk and length were modest, and the substantial plot could accommodate its size and scale.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice name the building or area said to be harmed?
- Does it identify the physical feature said to cause harm?
- Does the refusal notice address mass, materials, window design or site capacity?
These examples cover extensions, an outbuilding and a boundary fence, so their facts may not match your proposal. 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
30 August 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
‘Erection of first floor extensions and alterations to elevations’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appeal proposal seeks to extend the property at first floor level and reconfigure the roof. The mass of the front elevation would be relatively similar to the existing; the main protruding gable would remain the predominant Appeal APP/R3650/D/21/3286517 feature of the elevation albeit at an increased height, and the existing small dormer window would be replaced with a modern flush window within the roof. The fenestration in the front elevation first-floor would be modern, angled and proportionate to the scale and design of the front elevation specifically, as well as the overall host dwelling. The rear elevation would comprise of a main rear gable, with a smaller subservient gable and feature fenestration. The proposed materials and detailed design would break up the mass and create a cohesive appearance for the whole host dwelling. As such, the appeal proposal would have a high-quality design.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
19 May 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
detached garage with room over.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
[name] accept that the bulk, massing and length of the proposed building would be greater than that approved in 2012, the resulting difference or increase would, in my view, be modest. Although there would be a material change in the appearance of this part of the appeal site compared to that approved in 2012 and as currently exists, I am satisfied that any impact arising from the proposed building would not be significant or harmful to the host or to the streetscene. [name] confirmed earlier, the host property is located within a substantial plot that is more than sufficient to accommodate an outbuilding of the size and scale proposed. I also consider that the design of the proposal would be a high quality and in keeping with the appearance of the host property and its local context. Overall, the proposal would result in a development that sits comfortably on this part of the appeal site.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
11 April 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
detached outbuilding with ancillary accommodation above to replace double garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy TD1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 1: [name] and Sites (2018) and Policies DM1 and DM4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2023) and Policy H6 of the Haslemere Neighbourhood Plan 2013-2032. Amongst other things, these policies seek high quality design which responds effectively to its surroundings and reinforces local distinctiveness.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
31 August 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
‘Erection of a boundary fence fronting the public highway’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Appellant’s right to a family life under Article 8 sets out the right to respect for private and family life, his home and his correspondence. This is also a limited right and interference with this right in accordance with the law as is necessary in a democratic society is lawful. In this case, the interference with the Appellant’s home in preventing the erection of a boundary treatment which would cause harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area would be a proportionate interference in securing the rights and freedoms of others in accordance with planning law and policy.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
15 February 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described in the application form as a “front and first floor extension”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Evidently, the appeal scheme is “sustainable” in planning terms, as an extension to an existing large building, and the proposed development would make a useful addition to the existing house. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the harm that would be done to the character and appearance of the existing building outweighs the benefits of the project. Hence, I have concluded that the scheme before me would conflict with both national and local planning policies (including the Development Plan) and that it ought not to be allowed. [name] have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3