Woking Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused for inappropriate Green Belt development in Woking?
See the Green Belt tests addressed in the selected Woking examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 15 of 112
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 10
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 14
- of 15 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 Green Belt exception tests
The displayed examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. The allowed extracts give conclusions, rather than their supporting analysis.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt tests in dismissed examples
Openness was an exception test
The claimed exceptions required the proposal to preserve openness or have no greater impact than existing development.
Unmet need lacked compelling evidence
In the grey-belt case, the extension would not add housing supply, and there was little compelling evidence of unmet need for that development type.
Other considerations needed to outweigh harm
This conclusion-only extract says other considerations had to clearly outweigh Green Belt harm and any other harm.
Helped or needed
Exceptions in allowed cases
An exception was found
The Inspector concluded the detached garage and carport would comprise an exception to inappropriate development.
No further Green Belt assessment
The Inspector concluded the proposal was not inappropriate, so did not consider openness, Green Belt purposes or very special circumstances.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal call your proposal inappropriate development?
- If you claim an exception, does your evidence show openness is preserved?
- Does the refusal say other considerations must outweigh Green Belt harm?
Appeal 75430 concerns a grey-belt exception for an extension, so it sits at the edge of this issue. 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
3 March 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is 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. There is also no other harm to weigh it against.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
24 February 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of a detached building forming partly garage and partly car port.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in both appeals is whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Furthermore, as the proposal, in either case, would comprise an exception to inappropriate development, it follows that there would be no adverse effect on openness and that none of the Green Belt purposes would be infringed.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
17 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a new timber carport with a dual pitched roof and overall height of 3300mm located in front of the main elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
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.
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
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.
Paragraph 25 · Source page 5
17 March 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Demolition of existing stables/ storage building and replacement with detached oak framed garage/ storage barn.’
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; - The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; - The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, 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 proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appellant states the proposal could fall to be considered under exception 149b) of the Framework, which provides that appropriate development can include the provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor recreation (among other things), as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The exception at paragraph 149g) has also been put forward, where partial redevelopment of previously developed land can be appropriate if it would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development. Consequently, whether the development would be appropriate under 149b) or 149g) depends on an assessment of impact on openness, which is carried out below.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
28 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a single-storey rear extension, raising of the ridge height to accommodate a lift to the first-floor accommodation, rear rooflights, solar panels, and associated works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are:- • whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • if inappropriate development, the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • if the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the ‘very special circumstances’ which would be necessary to justify it.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The revised Framework in December 2024 introduced grey belt. The Council acknowledge that the site could be considered grey belt land and that there would be compliance with criterion (a) of paragraph 155 in relation to the Green Belt purposes. Having regard to the site comprising a residential property within a road of other properties, I have no reason to disagree. However, compliance is required with all the criteria, and b requires that there is an unmet need for the type of development proposed. The appellant suggests that the Council do not have a 5- year housing supply. The Council disputes this, and in any event, as an extension to an existing property, this proposal would not add to the housing supply. While it would increase the size of the property and provide for the medical requirements of the proposed occupants, there is little compelling evidence that there is an identified unmet need for the type of development proposed. Consequently, the proposal does not accord with this exception.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2