Appeal 3330272
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
5 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
described in the application form as: “erection of single storey side extension and part single part two storey rear extension”.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for “erection of single storey side extension and part single part two storey rear extension”, at ‘ [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application (reference WA/2023/00112, dated 16 January 2023), subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule of Conditions.
Section 03
Main issue
The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on nearby trees and woodland.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is located at the junction of [address] and [address], near the edge of the built up area of Farnham. The house at ‘[address]’ is a substantial dwelling in a traditional design, standing in extensive grounds that are mainly laid to grass, to the north of the junction. Within the grounds, there are various domestic outbuildings and structures in addition to the house, while a separate “meeting room” is located on land to the north, with a linking pedestrian path.
The grounds are carefully maintained, with laurel hedges defining areas of grass, and they include an area of woodland with numerous mature trees. Two substantial outbuildings stand between the house and the woodland area that is located to the south-east of the house, between that and [address]. This woodland area covers some very uneven land, where the ground level falls away in a deep hollow below the level of the house. This part of the woodland is identified as an area of “Ancient Woodland” but the nearest trees to the house appear not to be “veteran trees”.
It is now proposed to construct extensions to the house, with the main alterations on the south-west and south-east elevations, nearer to the trees and woodland referred to.
The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ emphasises the importance of natural habitats and biodiversity and lays special emphasis on protecting irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees.
Policies in the Development Plan also identify these planning objectives. Attention has been drawn to Policies NE1 and NE2 of the ‘Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 1: [name] and Sites’ (dated February 2018) and to Policy DM11 of the ‘Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies’ (dated March 2023). Policy DM11 focusses specifically on the protection of existing woodland and important trees and hedgerows.
[name] aimed at achieving good design and protecting local character and natural beauty are also relevant, of course, including Policies in the ‘Farnham Neighbourhood Plan 2013-2032’.
Helpful general advice has also been provided by the Forestry Commission, in response to the planning application, specifically relating to ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees.
The proposed extensions would be constructed in a traditional style, in keeping with the existing house and the surroundings. The construction would not be excessive in scale, and it would not be objectionable in principle. The extensions would encroach into the open space to the south-east of the house, which is bounded by a laurel hedge and a belt of trees.
This open area is mainly laid to grass, with two substantial outbuildings set apart from the house. At the edge of the space, beyond the outbuildings, the land falls away sharply and is set with a number of trees, forming an area of woodland. The woodland is evidently used as part of the garden, however, with some play equipment within it.
Some of the plans submitted in the appeal do not accurately delineate the extent of the woodland in the vicinity of the house, since the laurel hedge and the crest of the bank are more closely associated with the woodland edge in reality. Moreover, while the nearest significant trees to the house are mature and sound, they are not veteran trees of very great age.
Bearing in mind the distance of the nearest trees from the proposed extensions and the character of the trees, I am convinced that they would not be adversely affected by the new construction, even though the works would encroach into the “buffer zone” that has been identified. The “ancient woodland” designation has been acknowledged by the parties, as such, but an inspection of the site shows that such a notional designation (and “buffer zone”) ought to be considered in the light of physical features as they appear on the ground. 2
Hence, I am convinced that the proposed extensions would not amount to development resulting in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland or of ancient or veteran trees. The proposals would not diminish biodiversity and would not harm the visual amenity and character of the area. I am persuaded, therefore, that the project would be in accordance with the Development Plan as a whole and that it would not conflict with the ‘National Planning Policy Framework’.
In short, I am convinced that the scheme before me can properly be permitted and, although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision.
I have, however, also considered the need for conditions and, in imposing conditions, I have taken account of those suggested by the Council in the usual way (without prejudice to their main arguments in the appeal). In particular, I have concluded that conditions are necessary to define the planning permission and to ensure that quality is maintained.
Additional conditions are also necessary, as indicated by the Council, to ensure that certain mitigation measures are implemented and adhered to, in accordance with reports that were submitted by the applicant in support of the planning application.
Section 05
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: Drawing number 946-E-401 ([name]); Drawing number 946-E-402 ([name]); Site Location Plan ([name]) (1:1250 @ A4); Block Plan; Ground Floor Plan (proposed); [name] (proposed); [name] (proposed); [name].
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
The submitted [name] and scaled Tree Protection Plan (provided by Sapling Arboriculture Ltd, dated 13/06/2023, reference J1420.02) shall be adhered to throughout the development process.
The Local Authority shall be provided with a minimum of two weeks written notice prior to expected commencement of demolition or construction activities. The written notice shall include visual physical evidence of ground and fence protection with associated Tree Protection Area signage with [name] tags. The ground and fence protection shall be located in accordance with the [name] and Tree Protection Plan.
The development hereby approved shall be implemented entirely in accordance with the impact avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures set out in the [name] (prepared by Ethos Environmental Planning, dated 13/06/2023) that was submitted with the planning application. 4
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 285No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 23 February 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 6 February 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3330272
- Application reference
- WA/2023/00112
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Waverley Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000216
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
- 46 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 27 September 2023
- Valid date
- 27 September 2023
- Start date
- 24 November 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 31 July 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 23 February 2024
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
- 47046
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21