Two storey rear extension. Conversion of outbuilding to gym and alterations to dwelling in cladding changes to fenestration

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 March 2026 by J Davis BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005116 2 Litchfield Way, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7QL • 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 Daniel Holden against the decision of Guildford Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/P/00491. • The development proposed is described as two storey rear extension. Conversion of outbuilding to gym and alterations to dwelling in cladding changes to fenestration. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 7 Wilderness Road with particular reference to outlook and light. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling, attached to 4 Litchfield Way. A ground floor structure to the rear of the dwelling also links it to 7 Wilderness Road, a semi-detached dwelling which is sited perpendicular to the appeal property. No 7 has been extended including by way of a two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension. 4. The siting of 7 Wilderness Road relative to the appeal property results in the area to the rear of both dwellings having a strong enclosed feel. This is compounded by the limited space between the properties and the narrow gardens to the rear. 5. The proposed single storey rear extension would be sited adjacent to an existing extension to the rear of 4 Litchfield Way and would not have any significant effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of that dwelling. Furthermore, the proposed two storey extension would be set in from the boundary with No 4 a sufficient distance to ensure that it would not have any significant impact on No 4 in terms of loss of outlook or light. 6. There are however first floor windows on the original rear wall of 7 Wilderness Road, the closest of which is positioned above the existing ground floor linking element. The proposed two storey extension would be set slightly in from the main flank wall of the appeal property and the closest part of it would have a chamfered design to follow the general alignment of the boundary at this point. Appeal Decision 6005116 2 7. The appeal proposal would add further built form and bulk at two storey level in close proximity to the boundary with 7 Wilderness Road and from the plans before me, would significantly breach the 45 degree angle, in plan form, contrary to the advice set out in the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2018) (SPD). Whilst the effect of the extension would be reduced by the chamfered design, it would nonetheless have a considerable depth of 2.7m and, in the absence of further technical evidence in terms of a Daylight and Sunlight Report, I cannot be sure that the proposal would not reduce the amount of daylight and sunlight received by the closest windows on the rear elevation of No 7 to a harmful degree. 8. Even more significantly, the proposed extension would further add to the existing sense of enclosure to the rear of the appeal property and 7 Wilderness Road. This sense of enclosure would be particularly apparent from the closest first floor window on the rear elevation of No 7 where due to a combination of the height, depth and proximity of the extension, it would be overbearing and harmful to the outlook from that window. This would be likely to result in harm to the living conditions of the occupants of that property. 9. Whilst 7 Wilderness Road has an existing ground floor rear extension, given its lower height, this extension is not harmful to the outlook of the occupants of the appeal property and is not comparable to the appeal scheme. 10. The appellant refers to previous proposal at the appeal property which included a single storey rear extension with dormer over (LPA ref. 22/P/00194) which was approved by the Council and therefore claims that the Council has dealt with the proposals inconsistently. However, the rear dormer was shown to have a limited depth of 0.85m and is not comparable with the appeal proposal in terms of its design or effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 7 Wilderness Road. 11. A two-storey rear extension at 6 Wilderness Road approved under LPA ref. 25/P/00149 is also referred to by the appellant. However, this extension was shown to have a depth of 1.86m, considerably less than that of the appeal proposal and therefore is not directly comparable. 12. I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of 7 Wilderness Road with particular regard to outlook and light. It would be contrary to Policies H4, D4 and D5 of the Guildford Borough Council: Development Management Policies 2023, the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework 2024. Collectively and amongst other things, these policies seek high quality design and for development proposals to avoid having an unacceptable impact on occupiers of existing properties, including in terms of visual dominance and overbearing effects of a development and access to sunlight and daylight. Other Matters 13. The appeal site is within Onslow Village Conservation Area (CA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. The Council did not raise concern regarding the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including on Appeal Decision 6005116 3 the CA. From the information before me I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s finding on this issue. 14. The appellant refers at length to discussions and correspondence with the Council that took place during the course of the application. Whilst no doubt frustrating, the length of time taken to reach a decision and the manner in which the application was handled by the Council are not matters which I can take into account in the determination of the appeal. Conclusion 15. For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Davis INSPECTOR