Waverley Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused as inappropriate Green Belt development in Waverley?
See how garage size and siting counted against a dismissed appeal, and what selected allowed examples concluded about Green Belt inappropriateness.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 49 of 93
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 13
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 35
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 45
- of 49 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
Green Belt garage size and siting
The selected examples mostly allow proposals, while the matched local set mostly dismisses them. Several allowed extracts give conclusions only.
Counted against appeals
Larger, more prominent replacement garage
Existing garage did not offset impact
The existing garage was smaller and more secluded. The proposed garage was larger and more prominently positioned, so removal was given limited weight.
Helped or needed
Appropriately scaled Green Belt extension
Extension was not disproportionate
The Inspector concluded the extension was not disproportionate, was appropriately scaled and fell within a Green Belt exception.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice compare your building's size with what it replaces?
- Does it say the new building would be more prominent?
- Does it explain why your extension is disproportionate?
In the selected examples, dismissed evidence is limited to a garage appeal, while several allowed extracts state conclusions without supporting analysis. 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
4 examples
24 October 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of single storey extension and alterations following demolition of existing outbuilding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and development plan policy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, the proposal would not constitute a disproportionate addition and would accord with exception (c) of paragraph 154 of the Framework. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would accord with Policies RE2 and DM14 of the Waverley Local Plan and with the Framework insofar as they seek to ensure that proposals for extensions in the Green Belt are appropriately scaled.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
4 April 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as the construction of a detached oak framed double garage with associated external works, including an extension to the existing driveway.
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) and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As the proposal would not be inappropriate development, it is not necessary to further consider the effect of the proposal on openness (or the purposes of including land in the Green Belt), nor is it necessary to consider very special circumstances, and there is no other harm identified to weigh it against.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
4 April 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as a 1.5 metre extension to the ground floor sitting room to the rear garden elevation and a corresponding extension to the first- floor master bedroom to form an en-suite bathroom, and a single storey extension to the northwest elevation to provide an ensuite bathroom to the ground floor bedroom.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue 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
As the proposal would not be inappropriate development, it is not necessary to further consider the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt or whether very special circumstances are necessary.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
19 December 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey front extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. 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; • if inappropriate, the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if inappropriate, 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 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and would accord with Policy RE2 of the LPP1 and Policy DM14 of the LPP2, which together seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. It would therefore not be harmful either to the openness of the Green Belt or to the purposes of including land within it.
Paragraph 9 · 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