Appeal 3368991
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
replacement first floor accommodation over existing retained ground floor area.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
[site address] is part of a residential area of private roads. The properties vary in style, but they are traditional in form, and the area has a verdant and suburban character. The appeal property is one of a group of more recent additions, although the detached houses reflect the materials and form of the local vernacular.
The [site address] [name], as part of the Neighbourhood Plan1, advocates that design is in keeping with the established character of [site address] and with the style of properties surrounding the development.
Montclair has an attached garage with a hipped roof to the side that extends up to the shared boundary with the neighbouring property, Rowans. It has accommodation within the roof, served by a pitched-roof dormer window to the front. While maintaining the same footprint, the proposal would alter the roofscape, creating a mansard-style roof with a flat top. It would not add significant bulk, but the steep pitch and profile would be at odds with the hipped form of the host property, and it would visually reduce the gap to the neighbouring property. The zinc cladding and the scale and detailing of the windows further accentuate the contrasting form.
On its own, the structure is well-designed and proportioned, and I accept that contemporary extensions can sit alongside more traditional forms. However, 1 [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2033 despite being set below the ridge line of the host property, the extension would, through its form and detailing, be a dominant and noticeable addition. There is a diverse palette of materials in the area, but located directly between the multi-buff brick and red tile hanging of the host property, and the red brick and flint of the neighbouring property, the proposed development would be an incongruous feature and would fail to harmonise with its setting.
As such, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the wider street scene, conflicting with policies H4 and D4 of the Local Plan: Development Management Policies, and policy D1 of the Local Plan: Strategy and Sites (2015 – 2034). These promote high-quality design in keeping with the character of the area, ensuring that development respects the existing property and street in terms of scale, design, and appearance. This is also echoed in Policy EH-H7(a) of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan (2017-2033), the [name] and [name] (2018), and Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons set out, the appeal is dismissed.
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 362No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 25 September 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 September 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3368991
- Application reference
- 24/P/01698
- 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
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 1
- Site in Green Belt
- Yes
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- 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
- 9 July 2025
- Valid date
- 17 July 2025
- Start date
- 17 July 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 April 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 25 September 2025
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
- 76917
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21