Two storey side extension
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Residential Amenity
Extensions
Policy Weight
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 10 March 2026
by K Crutchfield BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 15th April 2026
Appeal Ref: 6002949
41 Poltimore Road, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7PN
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Freedman against the decision of Guildford Borough Council.
• The application Ref is 25/P/01195.
• The development proposed is a two storey side extension.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey side
extension and single-storey front extension at 41 Poltimore Road, Guildford, Surrey
GU2 7PN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/P/01195, subject to
the following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from
the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
approved plan 4046-P01a.
3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those
used in the existing dwelling.
4) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the window on the
first-floor side elevation has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of
that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it
is installed shall be capable of being opened. The window shall be permanently
retained as such thereafter.
Preliminary Matters
2. The description of development in the banner heading is taken from the application
form. However, the proposal also includes a single-storey front extension, therefore I
have amended the description of development in my formal decision.
3. An amended plan was submitted during the appeal to address a discrepancy
between the proposed floorplans and elevations which was identified by the Council
in the officer’s report. As the amended plan does not change the proposal I have
accepted the plan, and my decision is made on this basis.
Main Issue
4. The main issue is the effect of the two-storey side extension on the living conditions
of the occupants of 39 Poltimore Road, with particular reference to outlook.
Appeal Decision 6002949
2
Reasons
5. Poltimore Road is located in an urban residential area; Nos 39 and 41 are detached
two-storey dwellings set in generous plots. The house at No 39 which is next to the
proposed extension has a first-floor bedroom window on the rear elevation which is
significantly recessed from the main rear elevation and is the nearest first-floor
window to the common boundary with the appeal property.
6. The proposed two-storey side extension would not extend significantly beyond the
main rear elevation of No 39, but it would significantly extend past the recessed
window. Nevertheless, Nos 39 and 41 are set away from the common boundary and
the recessed window is set in from the side elevation of No 39, which would result in
an adequate separation distance between the proposed extension and the recessed
window. Furthermore, the roof would be hipped away from No 39 which would avoid
excessive bulk. In addition, the recessed window is not the only window to that
bedroom as it also has a window to the front. I acknowledge that No 39 is set at
lower ground levels than the appeal property, but the difference is minimal. For
these reasons, the proposal would not unacceptably affect the outlook from this
window, which would accord with the advice in the Guildford Borough Council
Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
(2018).
7. The dormer window on the east side of the proposed extension would extend
marginally beyond the roof plane and would therefore not be a bulky addition or
visually dominant feature on this elevation. Accordingly, it would not unduly affect
the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants, with regards to outlook.
8. The Council refer to the 45 degree guide as set out in the Guildford Borough Council
Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD, with regard to the impact on outlook to
the occupants of No 39. However, the SPD explains that the purpose of the 45
degree guide is to aid assessments regarding the impact on light, not outlook.
Notwithstanding this, the appellant has provided evidence which demonstrates that
the 45 degree line would only be marginally transgressed, and that there is another
window which serves this bedroom on the front elevation. For these reasons, I am
satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of light to the
neighbouring occupants.
9. 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.
Conditions
10. In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the
approved plans as this provides certainty. A condition requiring the use of matching
materials is necessary to maintain the character and appearance of the existing
dwelling and local area.
11. In order to protect the privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring properties I have
imposed a condition requiring the first-floor window on the side elevation to be fitted
with obscured glazing, and to restrict the opening of this window.
Appeal Decision 6002949
3
Conclusion
12. For the above reasons, the proposal accords with the development plan. Material
considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance
with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed.
K Crutchfield
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.