Guildford Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Guildford?
A quick guide to checking a character-and-appearance refusal against the selected local examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 112 of 215
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 38
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 71
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 105
- of 112 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Guildford LPA (51.24778, −0.561616). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Guildford Borough Council appeal findings
Guildford extensions: scale, frontage and materials
One dismissed example gives only a conclusion, so it cannot show the design detail behind the harm.
Counted against appeals
Where extensions disrupted the house
Scale interrupted the main frontage
The garage interrupted the principal elevation and stood out from Brackendene, despite the size of the house.
Wider gable and extra window
Unlike nearby two-storey parts of main houses, the garage extension was wider and had an extra window, making it look out of proportion.
Unexplained harm to area appearance
The Inspector concluded that the proposal harmed the area’s character and appearance. The displayed extract gives no further explanation.
Helped or needed
Features that avoided visual harm
Render remained secondary
The Inspector found no harm where the rendered ground-floor extension stayed secondary and complemented the house’s brick and tile.
Roof changes found not harmful
The Inspector concluded that the changes would not harm the area’s character and appearance. The displayed extract does not explain why.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a frontage or elevation interrupted by your proposal?
- Is your extension wider or less balanced than nearby comparable house parts?
- Would the proposed material remain secondary and complement the original house?
Some selected examples focus on the host house or extension, not the wider street, and one dismissed extract gives only a conclusion. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
12 September 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a front porch, single storey side and rear extensions, raising the roof including five dormers and seven rooflights, and changes to fenestration.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, I find that the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such it would accord with policy D1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites 2015-2034, policies D4 and H4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Development Management Policies (2023) and policy WH2 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan. Collectively, and amongst other things, these policies require a high-quality design that responds to the local character, and for extensions to have regard to the existing context and the scale, height, character, materials and proportion of the existing building. I also find no conflict with the objectives of the SPD or the National Planning Policy Framework which seek high-quality design.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
3 November 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as ‘Proposed rendering to ground floor extension’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Whilst the application of render to the extension is different to the prevailing red brickwork and tile treatments at No 25, the ground floor extension is nevertheless subservient to the wider dwelling. The more recent nature of the extension is clearly apparent. The application of render provides a natural contrast between the extension and dwelling which, though visible from the street, does not detract from the dwelling’s original features. With reference to the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2018 (the ‘SPD’), the use of render on the extension provides a complementary material to the prevailing brick and tile treatment at No 25. Therefore, the rendering of the extension does not result in harm to the character or appearance of the host property.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
21 July 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a new double garage including workshop/store and bin storage on existing driveway. To occupy approximately half the current drive/parking area. Construction to be of concrete block rendered, pebble dashed and painted. To match finish and colour of the main house. Roof to be pitched and tiled with clay tiles selected to match existing house roof. Rainwater recovery tank to be installed to store water for use in the garden collected from new roof. External areas to retain gravel - no additional hard paving/paving blocks to be added.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Council’s delegated report refers to harm from the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling in terms of the legibility of the principal elevation. However, the Council’s grounds for refusal, as set out in the decision notice, refers solely to the character and appearance of the area. Nevertheless, I observed that the host dwelling would be seen in the context of the neighbouring dwellings, including [address], and these do not obscure the principal elevation of the host dwelling. However, notwithstanding the large scale of the host dwelling, the proposed development would interrupt and detract from its legibility due to the scale and visual prominence from Brackendene. I am therefore in agreement with the Council’s view regarding the impact on the host dwelling.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
7 January 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing conservatory and erection of a two storey side/rear extension / alterations to roof and new front dormer.
Issue identified by the Inspector
I consider that the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, it would conflict with the policies referred to above and therefore the appeal fails.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
12 October 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
first floor front extension above garage with alteration to roof and single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I note that other houses have 2 storey elements which project forward and have gable ends. However, these are part of the main house, rather than extensions above attached garages, and thus do not extend to the side of houses as would be the case with the appeal property. Furthermore, they are similarly proportioned and have 2 windows at first floor level. The proposed extension would be wider than other gable projections and the additional window would draw attention to the difference in width. As a result, it would appear out of proportion and would not integrate well with the host property or reflect the design of similar elements on other houses nearby. Despite the limited views of the site, because of its end of road location, there would be harm to the appearance of the house and immediate surroundings. These elements of the proposal would not therefore accord with Policy D1 of the Guildford Local Plan: Strategy and Sites 2015-2034 (2019), Policies H4 and D4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Development Management Policies (2023), Policy B-FD 1 of the Burpham Neighbourhood Plan (2016) and the guidance set out within the SPD which require high quality design that takes into account the scale, character, form, and proportion of the existing building.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2