Appeal 3282872
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
4 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
extensions to existing dwelling including a two storey side extension, a single storey rear extension, alterations to the on-site parking and replacement windows; all together with minor internal alterations.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider that the main issue is whether the proposal preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a detached house in the [address] Conservation Area and therefore I have had regard to Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which requires that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. This is reflected in Local Plan (2019)1 Policy D3, Local Plan (2003)2 Policy HE7 and the National Planning Policy Framework3.
The house is on four floors and at the time of my site visit the dwelling was vacant and work was underway for its refurbishment. Of the elements proposed, the reason for refusal refers only to the proposed roof arrangement. The proposal would alter or add accommodation on all four floors but most noticeable from the street would be the extension of the second floor which would result in alterations to the appearance of the roof. In terms of the effect of the proposed works on the Conservation Area, I agree with the Council that 1 Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites 2015 – 2034, Adopted 25 April 2019. 2 Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003, [name] 2003. 3 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government National Planning Policy Framework, 2021 (the Framework). that this element would have the most significant impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The existing roof arrangement is part of the character of the existing house with its pitched design set behind a parapet. The roof is not the principal feature of the house but blends in simply and proportionally with the more ornate front facade and tall chimneys. The proposal would detract from this by creating a more noticeable feature at roof level. This would appear contrived and incongruous and detract from the overall character and appearance of the house.
I note that there are other designs of houses in the area and the immediate neighbour is quite different in design and in particular, has a much more prominent roof, as do others in the area. However, I consider that the appeal site makes an important contribution to the character and appearance of the area and therefore alterations, particularly those most visible in the street scene, require a greater sensitivity than the proposal offers.
I have considered all matters raised but none alter my conclusion. I conclude that the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area. It would conflict with Policies D3 and HE7 and the Framework and therefore the appeal fails.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 226No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 7 January 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 13 December 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3282872
- Application reference
- 21/P/00453
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Guildford Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000209
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 43 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 14 September 2021
- Valid date
- 14 September 2021
- Start date
- 7 October 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 12 July 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 7 January 2022
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 8555
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21