Woking Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Woking?
See which extension details harmed area character in Woking and which details inspectors 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
- 74 of 112
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 27
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 45
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 71
- of 74 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: Woking LPA (51.313876, −0.560739). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Woking Borough Council appeal findings
Woking extensions: bulk, lines and matching details
The selected examples lean towards allowed appeals, unlike the matched local set. Some allowed extracts state conclusions rather than their underlying analysis (90040, 37834).
Counted against appeals
Bulk that appeared too prominent
Bulk and massing
The extension’s bulk and massing were found significantly harmful to the surrounding area.
Prominent from nearby views
Its view from a nearby address made the extension appear unduly prominent.
Helped or needed
Details that supported a sympathetic extension
Keep it subservient
The front extension remained below the main dwelling and respected the existing building line.
Match visible roof details
Matching materials, eaves and ridge height helped it harmonise with the dwelling and neighbouring properties.
Consider the proposal as a whole
The Inspector found a roof-form exception justified because the development as a whole respected the property and local area.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify bulk, massing or prominence from a particular view?
- Would your extension stay below the main dwelling and respect the existing building line?
- Do your drawings show matching materials, eaves and ridge height?
The displayed Woking examples are extensions, so they may not fit a different proposal type. 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
8 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a front extension and alterations to external materials.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, I find that the proposal would not be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of this part of the estate and would comply with the [name] (2012) policies CS21 and CS24, which, together and, amongst other things, require development to respect the character of the area and to conserve the townscape.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
29 January 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of a single storey front extension to form garage with pitched roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed extension would extend the existing front projection at single storey height towards the west. Although the proposal would elongate the building, it would respect the existing building line to the north and would remain subservient in height to the main dwelling. The proposed materials, eaves and ridge height would match those on the existing single storey projection and would therefore harmonise with and be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the dwelling and neighbouring properties.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
30 August 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension, double storey side extension, demolish existing sun room and internal alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
I consider that the main issue in this case is its effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and that it is consistent with [name] policy CS21.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
14 February 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of two storey side extension and front and rear dormers.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and local area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would not fully accord with all the guidance in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: [name] (2015) (SPD) and in particular on the form of the roof under Section 9D. However, I have found that the proposed development, taken as a whole, would be well designed and would respect the character and appearance of the property and of the local area, which is the objective of the SPD. In the particular circumstances of this case, I am therefore satisfied that would be justification for an exception to be made to this part of the SPD.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
1 example
30 July 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘rear two storey extension on existing single storey. Materials to match existing (Windows, bricks and roof).’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The bulk and massing of the proposed extension and its undue prominence when viewed from [address] would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It therefore conflicts with Policy CS21 of the [name] (2012), the Woking Design Supplementary Planning Document (2015), and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Collectively, these seek well-designed development which makes a positive contribution to its surrounding area, including with regard to scale, proportion and layout.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2