Erection of a two-storey side and rear extension, single-storey rear extension with changes to the fenestration and roof alterations following demolition of existing attached garages

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 May 2026 by F Bradford BA (Hons) MRTPI Decision by David Cross BA(Hons) PgDip(Dist) TechIOA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008295 Little Acre, Old Rectory Lane, East Horsley, Surrey KT24 6QH • 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 Stocks against the decision of Guildford Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/P/01434. • The development proposed is the erection of a two-storey side and rear extension, single-storey rear extension with changes to the fenestration and roof alterations following demolition of existing attached garages. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. In the interests of clarity and accuracy, the description of development has been taken from the decision notice. Reasons for Recommendation 4. Little Acre is a two-storey detached dwelling located within a generous site, similar to that of other dwellings within Old Rectory Lane. Little Acre's rear boundary and that of its immediate neighbours backs onto Kingston Meadows. Owing to the position of the appeal dwelling's rear fenestration and the tall hedging, shrubs and trees along the boundary, the occupants of Willowhatch are not currently directly overlooked when using their rear garden. It is noted that, were the boundary to be removed, views could be possible towards the rear of the garden, with more limited, oblique views towards the middle portion. 5. The proposed development would introduce fenestration within a rear two-storey element, which would be in closer proximity to the boundary and more expansive than the existing. Whilst the direct outlook would remain towards the same part of the neighbouring garden, the proposed glazing would be substantially larger and would include full-height windows and opening doors serving a first-floor bedroom. 6. The proposal would provide materially greater opportunities for overlooking and intervisibility than currently exist. Whilst views would continue to be focused towards the rear part of the neighbouring garden, I find that the scale of the Appeal Decision 6008295 2 proposed glazing would result in an intrusive degree of actual and perceived overlooking beyond that which is reasonable within this context. Although some intervisibility may be acceptable in this location, this does not justify the degree of overlooking that would be enabled by the extent of glazing proposed. 7. Although the boundary treatment between the sites would provide some screening, It would not totally prevent overlooking from the proposed first-floor openings, nor would it sufficiently mitigate the increased perception of being overlooked. In any event, the vegetation and trees and their arising mitigative effects could not be secured within the parameters of this appeal. 8. Whilst the glazing would serve a bedroom, I am not convinced that this would lessen the harm. The appellants contend that bedrooms are less likely to be used during daylight hours when a garden would be. However, bedrooms are not confined to use outside of daylight hours and it is not uncommon for them to be used for homeworking, studying or prolonged periods of indoor recreation of which the outward opening doors suggest. 9. For these reasons, I consider that the development would result in an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupants of Willowhatch with regard to loss of privacy and overlooking. I therefore find conflict with Policy D5 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Development Management Policies (2023) which, among other things, aims to ensure development avoids having an unacceptable impact on the living environment of existing residential properties in terms of privacy and overlooking. I also find conflict with the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2018) (SPD), where it advises that extensions should not result in a harmful loss of privacy by windows directly overlooking neighbouring properties. Other Matters 10. The appellants contend that the development would accord with the SPD, namely where it relates to direct overlooking and side elevation windows. However, the purpose of the SPD is to provide guidance on the policy and any compliance with such does not automatically result in accordance with the development plan. Conclusion and Recommendation 11. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Finlay Bradford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. David Cross INSPECTOR