Proposed development is demolition of part of roof and enclosed walling, erection of side infill first floor extension and alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 April 2026 by P B Jarvis DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005370 Rose Cottage, Polesdon Lane, Ripley, Woking GU23 6DX • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Ed and Mrs Alicia Saunders against the decision of Guildford Borough Council. • The application Ref. is 25/P/01628. • The proposed development is demolition of part of roof and enclosed walling, erection of side infill first floor extension and alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of part of roof and enclosed walling, erection of side infill first floor extension and alterations at Rose Cottage, Polesdon Lane, Ripley, Woking GU23 6DX in accordance with the terms of application ref: 25/P/01628 and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years of the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 5382-S1 (floor plans and elevations), 5382-S1 (topographical plan), PL-01 (existing floor plans), PL-02 (proposed floor plans), PL-03 (proposed elevations), PL-04 (proposed block, site and roof plan), PL-05 (site location plan). 3) The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a two storey, semi-detached property of pebble dash render and brick elevations with front gable feature facing the lane under a pitched roof. The cottage has been extended to the side and rear with single storey elements under catslide roofs to either side of the gable front, a two-storey rear extension under a hipped roof and rear conservatory. It lies in a countryside location outside the built-up area of the village of Ripley albeit there are a number Appeal Decision 6005370 2 of residential properties located to the north and south along Polesdon Lane together with some farm buildings. 4. Policy P2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan Strategy and Sites (2019) (LP) states that development proposals within the Green Belt will be assessed in accordance with government guidance contained in the Framework. Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one the listed exceptions apply. These include, at paragraph 154(c), the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Neither the Framework nor LP Policy P2 define what is to be considered as a ‘disproportionate’ addition. However, LP Policy P2 and the Framework clarify that the original building is that which existed in 1948. 5. In terms of the increase in floorspace arising as a result of the proposal, including previous extensions, compared to the original, the Council suggests that there would be a resulting increase of 63% and the appellant contends that it would be 40%. However, as set out in the Council’s Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (SPD), there is no local policy guidance which indicates what should be considered as a disproportionate addition in these circumstances. It also states that whilst the increase in floorspace and volume can be useful indicators, there are other relevant factors, including bulk, external dimensions including height, scale relative to plot size and overall extent of visual perception. 6. In terms of volume, the increase relative to the original cottage is unclear, albeit the appellant does provide some information relating to the dwelling as existing and the proposed extension. The current proposal would essentially comprise a first-floor addition to the east side of the dwelling above the existing ground floor addition replacing the existing catslide roof, the front part of which would be removed and replaced by a lower hipped roof. The proposed extension would be set back from the main front elevation with double hipped roof with ridge height matching that of the existing rear addition, slightly below that of the main roof. 7. Whilst the proposal would add volume at first floor level, it would appear as a relatively modest and subservient addition in terms of its size compared to the original dwelling form. The additional bulk created would be seen within the street scene of Polesdon Lane, but it would appear as a subservient and proportionate addition in that context and would not be visually intrusive. The extensions that have already been carried out have added bulk both to the side and rear of the original cottage but when taken together with the extension now proposed, overall these additions would remain in scale with the original dwelling. Furthermore, when considered relative to the plot size it would also remain proportionate. 8. I find that having regard to all the above and the increased size of dwelling that has resulted from previous extensions, the proposal would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building and therefore would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 9. As I have found that the proposal would not be inappropriate development, it is not necessary to consider the impact on Green Belt openness further. Nor is it necessary for very special circumstances to be demonstrated. The proposal would satisfy Framework paragraph 154(c) and thus LP Policy P2. Appeal Decision 6005370 3 Other Matters 10. I have been referred to the Lovelace Neighbourhood Plan 2019-2034, but it does not appear to contain any policies of direct relevance nor were any cited in the Council’s reason for refusal. Conditions 11. In addition to the standard time condition, a condition to refer to the approved plans is necessary in the interests of clarity and proper planning. A condition to ensure that the extensions are finished in matching materials in the interests of the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area is also necessary. Conclusion 12. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed. P B Jarvis INSPECTOR