Planning Committee
25 November 2015
Planning Appeal Decisions
The following appeal decisions are submitted for the Committee's information and
consideration. These decisions are helpful in understanding the manner in which the Planning
Inspectorate views the implementation of local policies with regard to the Guildford Borough
Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24 September 2007) and the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012 and other advice. They should be borne in
mind in the determination of applications within the Borough. Copies of the decisions marked *
are attached. Copies of all appeal decisions are placed in the Members' Room. If Councillors
wish to have a copy of a particular decision letter, they should contact
Sophie Butcher (Tel: 01483 444056)
1.
1.
Mr Gavin Dickson
Dell-Quay, Fox Corner, Worplesdon, Guildford, Surrey, GU3 3PP
15/P/00696 – The development proposed is a first floor side extension.
Delegated Decision – To Refuse
Summary of Inspector’s Conclusions:
 The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character
and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.
 The effect of the proposal, if built, would be to extend two-storey
development across a substantial proportion of the width of the plot.
However, this would not be uncharacteristic of the area; several dwellings in
the locality are built to similar proportions in relation to their plot widths. I do
not therefore share the Council’s concerns as to ‘excessive width’.
 The Council expresses concern that the extension would not appear
subservient to the host property. I disagree with this assessment.
 The wall comprising the front elevation of the extension would not be set
back, the extension’s ridge line would be appreciably lower than that of the
host property. This aspect would serve to underline the extension’s
subservience.
 Moreover, the extension would not be as deep as the host property from
front to back, and the use of a hipped roof would reduce the perceived scale
of the extension.
 The design reflects that of the main dwelling in terms of the nature of the
fenestration proposed, and the use of tile hanging. The projection enclosing
the front entrance and staircase, with its hipped roof, adds visual interest
and successfully breaks up the mass of the front elevation.
 It is also of considerable significance that the property is set in a spacious
plot in verdant surroundings. Such is the density of local vegetation,
including trees and substantial hedges, that the extension would barely be
noticeable in oblique views from the highway when approaching the site
from either side.
 The property lies in a visually sheltered location, and the impact of the
proposed development on the wider scene would be negligible, and
acceptable.
 I conclude that the development, if built, would have no harmful
consequences either to the host property or the surrounding area.
 The Council’s suggested condition in respect of materials is necessary in
*ALLOWED
the interests of visual amenity, and shall be imposed.
2.
2.
Dr Juerong Li
6 Gumbrells Close, Fairlands, Guildford, Surrey, GU3 3NG
15/P/00489 – The development proposed is a loft conversion, with dormers
added at front and the back.
Delegated decision: to refuse
Summary of Inspector’s Conclusions:
 The main issue is the effect of the proposed front dormer on the character
and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.
 The appeal property was originally a modest detached two-bedroom
bungalow. The Council does not oppose the construction of the rear
dormer, largely because it is considered to be permitted development.
 The Council opposes the front dormer on design grounds. The appellant
says that the front dormer is virtually identical to one erected on the other
side of the street at 15 Gumbrells Close and that many others are evident
on the estate.
 I saw no examples of large flat roofed front dormers erected on bungalows
on my way through the estate.
 The flat roofed front dormer at no.15 was unique in Gumbrells Close, a culde-sac and is of utilitarian design, occupying most of the roof and
inappropriately dominating it because of its bulk. The Council has no record
of planning permission having been granted for it. It looked incongruous
both in relation to the host property and the street scene.
 I consider that this form of development should not be repeated at the
appeal property since it represents poor design, and would increase the
degree of visual harm experienced in the street.
 The National Planning Policy Framework advises that permission should be
refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities
available for improving the character of an area.
 I conclude that the proposed front dormer by reason of its bulk, scale and
poor design would harm the character and appearance of the host property
and the surrounding area.
DISMISSED