- Decision
- dismissed, 18 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: D Ellis
- Authority
- Waverley (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6006720
- Application reference
- WA/2025/02373
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Removal of outbuildings and erection of a single-storey one-bedroom dwelling in the rear garden
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- inside settlement, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 1.28 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4(2)(c), DP3(1), DP3(3), P3(2)(a), N2(1)(a)
- Development plan policies
- Waverley Local Plan Part 1 2018 TD1, NE1, Waverley Local Plan Part 2 2023 DM1, DM4, DM5, Farnham Neighbourhood Plan 2020 FNP1, FNP15, FNP16
- Main issues
- character and appearance; neighbour living conditions; future occupier living conditions; biodiversity
Summary
A one-bedroom bungalow replacing outbuildings in the rear garden of a semi-detached house in Badshot Lea. Dismissed. The Council had only 1.28 years' supply, and the housing benefit was given substantial weight. But the dwelling was cramped and out of character, which failed DP3(1). That triggered DP3(3)'s "should be refused", and so S4(2)(c). It also harmed neighbours' gardens, gave future occupiers an oppressive outlook contrary to P3, and had no BNG evidence (N2).
Issues and findings
- Transition. A new Framework was "issued on 17 August 2026 ... The appellant and the Council have had the opportunity to comment" (DL ¶2).
- Character — DP3(1): FAIL. "the new dwelling would be in very close proximity to its boundaries on three sides and consequently would appear cramped in its plot" (DL ¶6). DP3(1) allows change where density is justified by L2/L3, but "I am therefore not satisfied that the additional unit would constitute an effective use of land or that the increase in density would be justified" (DL ¶¶9-10).
- Neighbours. The dwelling would cause "a significant loss of outlook and sense of enclosure to the rear garden areas of No 7 and No 10" (DL ¶13). Noise and privacy were acceptable (DL ¶14).
- Future occupiers — P3(2)(a): FAIL. "the outlook from the bedroom, office and kitchen windows would be so enclosed as to feel oppressive" (DL ¶19).
- Biodiversity — N2(1)(a): FAIL. "it has not been demonstrated that a biodiversity net gain of at least 10% could be achieved" (DL ¶27).
- Guidance. Framework Section 1 ¶14 is used to bring in the National Design Guide section H1 as supporting guidance (DL ¶17).
Planning balance
The S4 balance. The single home, economic benefit and accessible location were "attributed substantial weight" given the 1.28-year supply (DL ¶33). Against them: DP3(3) refusal without clear justification, plus P3, N2 and NDG H1 failures. "I am satisfied when having regard to paragraph 2.c. of Policy S4 of the Framework that the benefits of the scheme would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶34).
What made the difference
The DP3(3) trigger feeds S4(2)(c) directly. Once the design was found not to respond to context "without clear justification", the S4 presumption was likely to be displaced, even at 1.28 years' supply. A dwelling that fitted the close's semi-detached rhythm and had rear garden space, or a scheme with a BNG metric and more generous separation, might have succeeded.
Transferable points
- A DP3(1) conflict without clear justification engages DP3(3), which is a "should be refused" policy for S4(2)(c). This can outweigh substantial weight for housing at a severe shortfall (1.28 years) (DL ¶¶31, 34).
- The DP3(1) caveat allowing change where density is justified under L2/L3 does not help a cramped backland unit (DL ¶¶9-10).
- P3(2)(a) (adequate access to light) is applied to future occupiers' outlook and daylight (DL ¶¶23-24).
- Failure to provide a biodiversity metric is a free-standing N2(1)(a) failure (DL ¶¶25-27).
- The National Design Guide is treated as Framework-backed guidance via Section 1 ¶14 (DL ¶17).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DP3(1) | fail | considerable | single-storey backland dwelling with its garden to the front, tight to three boundaries; cramped and incongruous in a symmetrical close of two-storey semis; density increase not justified under L2/L3 (DL 6, 9-11) |
| DP3(3) | fail | conflict with DP3(1) without clear justification, so a "should be refused" policy engaging S4(2)(c) (DL 34) | |
| P3(2)(a) | fail | side windows face the boundary fence at close range; oppressive outlook and poor daylight to bedroom, office and kitchen (DL 19, 23-24) | |
| N2(1)(a) | fail | no metric or landscaping plan, so 10% BNG not demonstrated (DL 25-27) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | 1 home against a 1.28-year supply, plus economic benefit and fairly accessible location, together substantial (DL 32-33) |
| S4(2)(c) | fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31, 34) |
Key facts
- Council supply 1.28 years (DL 32)
- A previous appeal for a 2-storey extension to form a dwelling (APP/R3650/W/24/3347423) was dismissed in 2025 (DL 5)
- The National Design Guide (H1) is used as supporting guidance via Framework Section 1 para 14 (DL 17-18, 23)
- Parties had the opportunity to comment on the new Framework (DL 2)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.