Planning Committee
10 June 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 Richard Smith
5 Whipley Close, Burpham, Guildford, Surrey, GU4 7SW
14/P/01568 – The proposed development for which a LDC is sought is
described on the application form as ‘Loft conversion incorporating dormer
window to rear roof slop and rooflight windows to front roof slope.
Delegated decision: to refuse
Summary of Inspector’s Conclusions:
 The appeal property is a two storey terraced dwellinghouse located on the
Weybrook Park Housing Estate. A LDC is sought for the erection of a flatroofed dormer extension spanning most of the rear roof slope, facing
Suffolk Drive, and the insertion of two rooflights in the front roof slope,
facing Whipley Close.
 Both the proposed rooflights and the proposed dormer extension comply
fully with the definition of ‘permitted development’ comprising the
enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse, as set out
in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended (the GPDO).
 On the evidence before me, No5 was erected pursuant to outline planning
permission ref 85/P/1433, granted by the Council on 7 October 1986 and
covering a substantial portion of the housing estate.

At the time the planning permission was granted, Class I of the 1977 Order
as amended conveyed permitted development rights for the enlargement,
improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse. Its provisions are
carried forward to current legislation set out in the GPDO. Accordingly, the
condition continues to have effect irrespective of its reference to a
superseded statutory instrument and removes present day permitted
development rights equivalent to those it specifically refers to.

However, it is impertinent that the condition does not encompass the full
range of rights conveyed by Class I, instead restricting removal to a
narrower category comprising those relating to the erection of ‘buildings or
structures..on the site.’

I find on the balance of probabilities that erecting the proposed dormer
extension without the benefit of express planning permission granted by the
Council would not have been lawful at the time of the LDC application.

I am also satisfied that permitted development rights that would have
enabled those works to be carried out at the time of the LDC application
have not been removed by means of condition 16. I find that component of
*PART
ALLOWED/
PART
DISMISSED



2.
the appeal proposal to be lawful.
I conclude that the Council’s refusal to grant a LDC in respect of the
insertion of rooflights into the front-facing slope of 5 Whipley Close was not
well-founded and that the appeal should succeed in that respect alone.
However, on the same basis the Council’s decision not to grant a LDC in
respect of the erection of a dormer extension projecting from the rear facing
roof slope was well-founded and that the appeal should fail in that respect.
The appeal is allowed in part, as it relates to the insertion of two rooflights
into the front-facing roof slope of 5 Whipley Close, as distinct from the
erection of a dormer extension projecting from the rear-facing roof slope.
The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
2.
Mr M Harvey
1 Merrow Croft, Guildford, Surrey, GU1 2XH
14/P/01977 – The development proposed is the erection of a pair of semidetached dwellings, with associated access, parking and amenity space
following demolition of existing dwelling.
Planning Committee: 7 January 2015
Decision: To Refuse
Officers Recommendation: To Approve
Summary of Inspector’s Conclusions:

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on
the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is occupied by a single storey bungalow which is set back
from both roads close to the boundary with 89 Horseshoe Lane East. There
is a garage accessed from Merrow Croft, close to the boundary with 2
Merrow Croft.

The proposed pair of semis would be set back and respect the alignment of
dwellings in Horseshoe Lane East, being slightly behind the front elevation
of No 89. The separation between No 89 and Plot 1 would be 3.8 metres
which is greater that exists between the existing dwelling and No 89 so that
it would not appear cramped in views along Horseshoe Lane East.

The flank elevation of Plot 2 would be set back about 5.5 metres from the
boundary with Merrow Croft and would respect the alignment of the
adjacent property, No 2. This set back from the road would ensure the
proposed development would not appear unduly prominent and would
retain a spaciousness within the street scene.

The proposed dwellings would be lower in height than the ridge of No2 and
about 1 metre higher than No 89. Due to the topography of the area, with
land rising from the north to the south, and a variety of heights of dwellings
in the immediate area, including flats opposite, they would not appear out of
place in the street scene.

The Highways Authority does not object to the tandem parking layout. The
parking would be discreetly sited and would not dominate views along the
Merrow Croft frontage.

As most dwellings have off-street parking provision, on street parking is less
frequent than it would otherwise be. Whether future occupiers choose to
park on the street occasionally or more frequently would not result in
material harm to the character or appearance of the area.

The proposed dwellings would respect and harmonise with the existing
character and appearance of the area. This would comply with saved LP
Policies G5 and H4 and guidance in the Residential Design Guide
*ALLOWED
Supplementary Planning Guidance 2004 which requires good design and
development which respects and harmonises with existing development
and is in scale and character with the area.
REFUSED
COSTS DECISION – the appeal was against the refusal of planning
permission of a pair of semi-detached dwellings, with associated access,
parking and amenity space following demolition of existing dwelling.
 In relation to the first reason for refusal this related to the effect of the
proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
There is no call to say that the Council was unreasonable in their
judgement, merely that it gave the issues different weight. In my view, the
Council amply explain its objection to the proposal and the harm that would
be caused it its view to the character and appearance of the area.
 The Council clearly state that the second reason for refusal could be
addressed by financial contributions in accordance with the Thames Basin
Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy 2009-2016. However
they considered that the legal agreement completed during the course of
the determination of the planning application required a minor addendum
and the second reason for refusal was drafted.
 I consider the S.106 agreement definitions included a planning permission
granted pursuant to an appeal and as such would achieve what was
necessary.
 I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or
wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated and
the application for an award of costs fails.
3.
3.
Mr G Davidson
175 – 191 High Street, Guildford, GU1 3HW
14/P/02085 – The development proposed is installation of 14 low energy
luminaires to soffit of existing canopy.
Delegated decision: non-determination
(the appeal is made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision
on an application for planning permission dated 10 November 2014).
Summary of Inspector’s Conclusions:
 The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposal on; firstly, the
Guildford Town Centre Conservation Area; and secondly, the setting of
nearby Grade I listed buildings, in particular the Royal Academy School and
the Holy Trinity Church.
 The appeal site accommodates a modern three storey building at the
junction of High Street and North Street in the historic Town Centre of
Guildford. The ground floor is in commercial use with the upper floors of
Norfolk House, 179 to 191, having been given consent to be converted to
residential.
 The proposal relates to the cantilevered concrete canopies above the
ground floor shops at numbers 179 to 185 and 187 to 191, either side of an
entrance to the upper floors.
 The canopy to 179 to 185 would be provided with 9 LED lighting units while
to 197 to 191 would be provided with 5 lighting units, 14 in total. The units
would be surface mounted, square shaped, subdivided to provide four
*ALLOWED
4.
quarter lighting panels, with a relatively low profile.
 The lighting proposals would introduce a modern, appropriate and modest
addition to the canopies, which are looking tired, and would assist in
generally upgrading their current appearance. The low profile and minimal
dimensions in the context of the existing building, would ensure that they
do not appear as significantly obtrusive elements in the street scene. They
would not be particularly visible or intrusive in longer views.
 The proposal would improve the appearance of the existing canopy and
general building frontage when viewed at close quarters.
 In longer views the limited size, scale and dimensions of the units would
result in minimal noticeable additions to the existing building.
 The appeal buildings currently make a negative contribution to the
conservation area; the proposals would make a small improvement to them
but not such that would address that negative impact. The appearance of
the conservation area would be preserved.
 The levels of illumination anticipated would not be such that they would
result in excessive illumination that would draw undue attention. This can
be further controlled by condition.
 The area is a busy shopping location with general activity and illumination
from other sources such that the proposals would not appear out of place
or excessively intrusive and the character of the conservation area would
thereby be preserved.
 I conclude that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance
of the Guildford Town Centre Conservation Area.
 Given the sensitivity of the location, it is appropriate to control the level and
intensity of illumination and I have therefore required the submission of
such details to the Authority for its approval.
D Ramsay
175 – 191 High Street, Guildford, GU1 3HW
14/P/01746 – The development proposed is re-siting of bin store and formation
of two additional parking bays.
Delegated decision: to refuse
Summary of Inspector’s Conclusions:
 The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or
enhance the character or appearance of Millmead and Portsmouth Road
Conservation Area, with particular reference to its effect on trees.
 The proposals would require the removal of trees T1 and T2, the two
Leylandii, in order to accommodate one of the parking spaces.
 The Council confirms that these trees have a limited life expectancy.
 One of the Lime Trees T4 would also be removed.
 The Leylandii do make a positive contribution to the verdant character of
this part of the CA and the amenity of the area. Given their prominent
siting, they are visible from some distance along Hitherbury Close and
Flower Walk. This serves to delineate the more spacious character of
development on Flower Walk from higher density development on
Hitherbury Close and help form a visual break between these distinctive
parts of the CA.
 I find that the loss of the trees would not preserve or enhance the character
or appearance of the conservation area.
DISMISSED
5.
Mr James Wittich
26 Thatchers Lane, Worplesdon, Guildford, Surrey, GU3 3RT
14/P/01354 – The development proposed is the demolition of single storey
garage/workshop on side of existing dwelling and erection of a new detached
dwellinghouse utilised shared access from highway and on-site parking and
turning with private rear garden.
DISMISSED
Delegated decision: non-determination
(The appeal is made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision
on an application for planning permission).
Summary of Inspector’s Conclusions:
 The main issues in this case are whether the proposed development would:
 Preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Worplesdon
Conservation Area; and
 Be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames
Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA), either on its own or in
combination with other development.
 The appeal site is the side garden on No 26 and its flank boundary abuts
the recreation ground.
 The proposed dwelling would be sited about 2.5 metres from the flank wall
of No. 26 with a gap of about 1 metre to the northern boundary. It would
reflect and complement the design of the pairs of semis with attractive
eaves detail and similar materials.
 Due to the separation distance from the flank of No 26 it would be read as a
separate dwelling and would not unbalance the pair of semi-detached
dwellings.
 The variety of dwelling types and forms within the Conservation Area, and
the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, is such that whilst the proposal
would introduce an additional dwelling within the street scene, it would not
detract from the composition of the pairs of semi-detached dwellings either
side of the entrance to Thatchers Lane or the wider street scene.
 I would find that the proposed dwelling would preserve the character and
appearance of the Worplesdon Conservation Area.
6.
Mr Nigel Durbridge
25 The Oval, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7TS
14/P/01099 – The development proposed is erection of single detached
dwelling.
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 surrounding area;
 Whether harm would arise with regard to third party concerns;
 And if harm rises on the first two issues whether it is outweighed by housing
land supply considerations.
 By occupying the gap between the two adjoining houses the proposed
development would detract from the open and relatively spacious quality of
its immediate surroundings. This harm would be intensified by the fact that
DISMISSED
the appeal site tapers to the rear which means that the proposed dwelling
would lie slightly forward of the two adjoining houses and occupy a
substantial part of the plot width.
 Adding to the incongruous nature of the proposed development would be
the fact that although having a hipped roof and rendered walls to match
dwellings locally, it would as a detached property have a notably different
appearance to surrounding houses.
 It is concluded that the proposed development would detract from the
character and appearance of the surrounding area.
7.
Mr Nino Fratamico
36 Guildford Park Road, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7NF
14/P/00902 – The development proposed is a detached building in the rear of
36 and 38 Guildford Park Road to provide student accommodation.
Delegated decision: to refuse
Summary of Inspector’s Conclusions:
 The main issues in the appeal are:
 The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area;
 The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of adjacent occupants
and whether or not acceptable living conditions would be provided for the
future occupants; and
 The effect of the proposal on the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection
Area (SPA).
 The proposal would be screened to some extent from Rupert Road because
it would be at a lower level and the boundary wall would be increased in
height. It would nevertheless be partially visible above the wall and would
also be visible from the rear of the adjacent properties.
 It would occupy a significant proportion of the rear gardens of the host
properties and it would have a cramped appearance in terms of its small
plot size and proximity to its boundaries.
 The rear of the proposal would project forward of the adjacent house and up
to the pavement. This forward projection combined with the proximity of the
building to the adjacent house would be awkward and intrusive in the street
scene.
 For these reasons the proposal would adversely affect the character and
appearance of the area. It would not respect the established pattern of
development and would not accord with saved policies G5(1) and H4 of the
Guildford Borough Local Plan (LP) (2003).
 The proposal would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the
occupants of the host properties in terms of loss of privacy and reduction in
external amenity space. It would also provide unacceptable living
conditions for the future occupant of the proposed building in terms of
privacy.
DISMISSED