Erection of a two storey side and rear extension and attached garage to facilitate the creation of an additional storey, along with alterations to fenestration following demolition of garage/workshop and rear conservatory

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 June 2026 by G Ellis BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008398 Nirvana, Orchard Close, East Horsley, KT24 5EZ • 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 Ms Hrytsyshyn against the decision of Guildford Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/P/01312. • The development proposed is the erection of a two storey side and rear extension and attached garage to facilitate the creation of an additional storey, along with alterations to fenestration following demolition of garage/workshop and rear conservatory. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. Nirvana is a detached bungalow with a garage to the side linked by a canopy. It is part of a group of bungalows to the south of Orchard Close, although the road has a mixture of house types, including chalet bungalows and two-storey houses. 4. The proposal would substantially increase the scale and massing of the property, fundamentally altering its appearance. The resultant built form would extend across the width of the plot, the depth would effectively be doubled compared with the original bungalow, and the height would be increased. 5. The development would have gabled projections on each side, of a considerable depth, connected via a central flat-roofed section. This would be partially screened by mock-pitched roof elements to the front and rear; it would nonetheless be an incongruous feature, creating an artificial roof form limiting the height while facilitating the building’s overall scale. 6. A single-storey element would be retained to the east side, which would reflect the design of the built form of Grosebrook immediately adjacent to the shared boundary. However, beyond that, the development would all be two-storey. The neighbouring property to the other side, Pentire, is sited further forward and has a garage building with a dormer to the roof, sited along the shared boundary. The proposed development would be positioned with very limited offset from that boundary. This boundary is set at an angle, widening to the rear and providing more space, but I agree with the Council this would not be visually discernible from Appeal Decision 6008398 2 the street. While the existing garage is similarly located, at two storeys, there would be a lack of visual separation, and the proposed development would appear cramped in the street scene. 7. I accept that the guidance within the Council’s SPD should not be applied arbitrarily. The 1-metre separation distance to the side boundary is expressed as a general rule, and in most circumstances such a buffer would assist in integrating new development with its surroundings. However, compliance or non-compliance with a single aspect of the guidance is not necessarily determinative of the proposal. Rather, the development must be assessed as a whole, applying a balanced exercise of planning judgement. 8. The appellant has drawn my attention to other properties along Orchard Close and referenced a number of planning permissions. The full planning history and plans for those properties1 are not before me, and each case must be considered on its own merits. There is, however, a clear pattern of transition and redevelopment within the area, with bungalows being altered to provide first-floor accommodation. Some of the houses have features such as gabled projections and/or increased height and depth, although their relationship with their neighbours differs, and in some cases, garages are retained to the side. I also acknowledge there are examples of flat roofs in the vicinity and that the proposal would align with the rear building line of Grosebrook and not protrude in front of Pentire. Nonetheless, whilst individual aspects may be reflective of other developments, overall, the design and massing of the proposed development is not directly comparable. 9. Having regard to the context, the principle of extending the bungalow, including increasing the height is not objectionable. However, the scale, height and massing of the appeal proposal, when considered in combination, would result in a substantial two-storey form out of keeping with the character of the area and intrusive to the street scene. 10. Permitted development rights (PD) are put forward as a fallback. No specific scheme is before me, and whilst it is suggested by the appellant that these represent a real prospect, both large rear extensions and class AA upward extensions would require prior approval consideration. Moreover, they would relate only to the existing bungalow and would not achieve the extent of the two-storey built form proposed. Therefore, while acknowledging that some alterations and additions to the property could be achieved through PD, these would not necessarily be more harmful. As such, I give this matter limited weight. 11. Therefore, the proposal would therefore fail to accord with the Guildford Borough Council Local Plan: Strategy and Sites (LPSS) policy D1, and policies D4 and H4 of the Development Management Policies March 2023 (LPDMP), which, together, seek to ensure that development, including extensions to properties, respects the character of the area and contributes to local distinctiveness. 12. The proposal would also conflict with policy EH-H7 (a) of the East Horsley Neighbourhood Plan and the design guidance of the SPD and Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which similarly promote high-quality design and for development to be in keeping with the established character and style of properties surrounding the development. 1 Ashenhurst, Lye Cottage and Little Hatch Appeal Decision 6008398 3 Other Matters 13. Reference has also been made to several other appeal decisions highlighting particular findings. I have had regard to these, although in a number of cases they were dismissed, and they relate to development elsewhere in the Borough. The decisions are also to be read as a whole, and regard has to be had to the particular circumstances of each case. As found by the Council, I do not consider that there would be harm to the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties, although this is a neutral factor rather than a benefit in favour of the proposal. Conclusion 14. Having regard to the matters set out above, and with due regard to all other matters, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and that the appeal should be dismissed. G Ellis INSPECTOR