Guildford Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Guildford?
See the neighbour-harm conclusions in selected Guildford appeals and the outlook finding in an allowed side-extension case.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 37 of 215
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 17
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 19
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 32
- of 37 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 neighbour harm and side-extension outlook
The selected examples lean dismissed, unlike the matched local set. The bungalow extracts give only conclusions, not detailed reasons for neighbour harm.
Counted against appeals
Bungalow conclusions on neighbour harm
Bungalows found harmful to neighbours
Both bungalow decisions concluded that the proposal would harm neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions, but neither conclusion explains the particular effect.
Helped or needed
Allowed side-extension outlook finding
No unacceptable outlook harm
The allowed side-extension decision found no unacceptable harm to No 39’s outlook.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Which neighbour and which living-condition effect does the refusal name?
- Does the refusal point to a particular outlook or privacy effect?
- Does it separate effects on neighbours from conditions for future occupiers?
Appeal 87784 concerns future occupiers, so it sits at the edge of this neighbour-focused issue. 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
1 example
15 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a two storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the two-storey side extension on the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with particular reference to outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the two-storey side extension would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 39, with particular reference to outlook. It would accord with policies H4 and D5 of the Guildford Local Plan: Development Management Policies (2023). These policies seek, amongst other things, to avoid having an unacceptable impact on the living environment of existing residential properties.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
21 June 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing detached single car garage. Proposed single storey side and rear extensions with living accommodation in the loft space with front, side and rear dormers.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular reference to privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], with reference to privacy. As such, it would not conflict with Policy H4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan Development [name] 2023, and the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2018, insofar as they seek for development to have an acceptable impact on privacy.
Paragraph 12 · Source pages 2, 3
23 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as “proposed new erection of 1 x two-storey and 1 x three-storey residential blocks comprising of 2 x one-bedroom flats and 3 x two- bedroom flats at the existing open air of 132 [name], Guildford [postcode] ”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of adjacent dwellings, with particular regard to outlook, privacy, sunlight and outdoor space; and whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to outdoor space, outlook and daylight.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with regard to outdoor space, outlook and daylight. As such, the proposal is contrary to the relevant provisions of Policy D5 of the DMP. This policy seeks, among other things, to avoid development resulting in unacceptable living conditions for new residential properties in terms of visual dominance and overbearing effects of a development and access to daylight and to ensure all new build residential development proposals have direct access to an area of private outdoor amenity space.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4
17 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a one-and-a-half-storey bungalow.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook; and • whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of private amenity space and internal floor space. 1 Appeal Ref: 6004289
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[name] have found that the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for proposed occupiers, it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to the development plan, when read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan and therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Paragraph 33 · Source page 5
17 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a one-and-a-half-storey bungalow.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook and natural light; • whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of private amenity space and natural light; and, • whether the proposal could deliver the required biodiversity net gain. 1 Appeal Ref: 6004290
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[name] have found that the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for proposed occupiers and that it would be capable of meeting the requirements for BNG, it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to the development plan, when read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan and therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Paragraph 40 · Source page 6