Wokingham Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt inappropriateness in Wokingham?
See the Green Belt concerns in Wokingham and how retaining walls were assessed.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 5 of 55
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 5 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: Wokingham LPA (51.42945, −0.8838). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Wokingham Borough Council appeal findings
Why Wokingham Green Belt schemes reduced openness
The selected retaining-wall example considers engineering works, so it is not a direct comparison with the extensions and garages.
Counted against appeals
Extensions and garages reduced Green Belt openness
The extension reduced openness
The inspector concluded the second-storey extension was inappropriate development and reduced Green Belt openness. Other considerations did not clearly outweigh that harm.
Taller roof increased the harm
The taller pitched roof and front dormer made the side extension more harmful to Green Belt openness than the lower outbuilding.
Character acceptability was not enough
The extract says the extensions and garage were inappropriate development that harmed Green Belt openness, even though it found no character-and-appearance harm.
Helped or needed
Retaining walls treated as engineering works
Retaining walls were engineering works
The inspector treated the retaining walls as engineering works rather than a new building. The extract says such works had to preserve openness and not conflict with Green Belt purposes, but does not say whether those tests were met.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say why your proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt?
- Does it explain how the buildings or roof reduce openness?
- Does it assess retaining walls separately from new buildings?
The selected text for appeal 32604 is a conclusion, so it does not give the preceding 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
1 example
17 January 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for the proposed erection of a garden storage outbuilding and retaining wall, following demolition of existing outbuildings ([name]).
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 proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposed development on protected trees; and • if the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal also includes the construction of retaining walls which would not be a new building. In my view this is a form of engineering works. This element of the proposal would therefore fall to be considered under paragraph 150 of the Framework. This sets out that certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. This includes b) engineering operations.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
15 May 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a ‘second storey extension over attached garage.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appeal site is located within an area of Green Belt. Accordingly, the main issues are: • Whether the proposed development 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 proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the surroundings; and • If the development would be inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would reduce openness in this location. The Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Even when taken together, I conclude that the other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm in this case. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The proposal is therefore contrary to MDDLP Policy TB01, CS Policy CP12 and guidance contained in the Framework relating to Green Belts.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
20 November 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the addition of a 1.5 storey side extension comprising utility, study and WC/Shower.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt and purposes of including land within the Green Belt; and • whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. 1 Wokingham Borough Local Development Framework Adopted Core Strategy Development Plan Document (January 2010). 2 Wokingham Borough Council Borough Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (June 2012).
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The outbuilding would serve different purposes to the extension, but still be associated with the residential use of the site. It would also be sited in a similar location to the proposed extension, but project to around the point of the proposed terrace. The ground floor of the extension would be inset beneath overhangs at the front and rear. Accordingly, there would be a very similar spatial impact on the openness of the Green Belt. However, the outbuilding would be considerably lower in height than the proposed extension, as the latter would incorporate a taller pitched roof with a gabled dormer to the front slope. The appeal scheme would therefore be of greater prominence and have a more harmful impact on the openness of the Green Belt in visual terms. There would therefore not be any benefit that would be achieved by avoiding the approved scheme as a ‘fallback position’.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
12 July 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
triple detached garage to include workshop and storage and demolition of existing garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues 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; • the effect of the proposal on protected trees, with particular regard to the quality of the environment; and • on the basis that the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to very special circumstances required to justify the development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have found that the proposal would constitute an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt and would not preserve its openness. There is also insufficient information to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in detrimental harm to the protected trees. It would therefore conflict with the development plan read as a whole. The Framework indicates that harm by reason of inappropriateness should be given substantial weight and that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
Paragraph 31 · Source page 5
22 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of two storey rear and side extension, single storey front extension and detached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues 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; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • on the basis that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to very special circumstances required to justify the development.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[name] have found that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area, it would conflict with Policy TB01 of the Local Plan. It would be an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt that would harm its openness and would therefore conflict with Policy CP12 of the [name]. The Framework indicates that harm by reason of inappropriateness should be given substantial weight and that inappropriate development should not be approved except for in very special circumstances.
Paragraph 29 · Source page 5