2 Chantry View Road, Guildford

Decision

dismissed, 21 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: J Heppell

Authority

Guildford (South East)

Appeal reference

6007054

Application reference

24/P/01774

Procedure

written representations

Development

Detached two-storey self-build dwelling in the garden of a Grade II listed former farmhouse

Homes

1

Site context

inside settlement, listed building setting

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

2.98 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HE6(3), HE6(4), S4(1)

Development plan policies

Guildford Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2019 D1, D3, P5, Guildford Local Plan Development Management Policies 2023 D4, D8, D18, D19, D20

Main issues

setting of listed building; setting of conservation areas; character and appearance

Summary

A self-build house in a tapering corner of the garden of a Grade II listed former farmhouse in suburban Guildford, beyond a curtilage-listed outbuilding. Dismissed. The house would dominate the historic outbuilding, causing moderate harm to the listed building's setting. That outweighed the public benefits under HE6 and "substantially outweighed" the benefits under S4, despite a 2.98-year supply and the L2(1)(d) criteria being met. Conservation area settings were preserved.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "The main parties were afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the new Framework" (DL ¶2).
• Listed building setting — HE6: HARM (moderate). The site "can be said to form only a minor component of its setting" (DL ¶13), but the CGIs show "the dwelling's main section being substantially higher than the outbuilding and its raised patio being level with the outbuilding's eaves and incongruously close to it. These aspects of the proposal would give it a dominant appearance in relation to the outbuilding, which in turn would negatively affect the setting of the LB, despite the site being a relatively minor element of its setting" (DL ¶14). "the degree of harm would be moderate, which is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶18).
• Garden subdivision, plot shape, views: no harm. "The relatively small size of the plot and its irregular shape are not therefore harmful aspects of the proposal" (DL ¶16); views from the River Wey "would not be harmful" (DL ¶17).
• Conservation areas: preserved (DL ¶¶17–18).
• HE6 balance: FAIL. A dwelling in a sustainable location, the shortfall, quick delivery, economic benefits and self-build (a benefit only "where there is a local waiting list") are "not sufficient to outweigh the harm" (DL ¶19).
• L2(1)(d) / DP3. The proposal "satisfies these criteria" and "its overall design responds positively to the local context in accordance with … Policy DP3" (DL ¶24).

Planning balance

Two steps. First the HE6(4) weighing: "the public benefits do not outweigh the harm" (DL ¶25). Then S4: none of the S4(2) situations apply, "I am nonetheless required to consider whether the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the harm I have identified to the significance of a heritage asset" (DL ¶22). HO7 substantial weight at 2.98 years (DL ¶23). "The harm I have identified is a matter of considerable importance and weight by reference to Policy HE6(3). In this instance, the benefits of approving development would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶26). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶29).

What made the difference

The height and patio level relative to the curtilage-listed outbuilding, shown by the appellant's own CGIs. The site was only a minor part of the setting and the design was otherwise praised, but dominance over the surviving farmyard building, which is the key surviving evidence of the farmhouse's agrarian origin, was enough for moderate harm. HE6(3)'s "considerable importance and weight" then carried the S4 balance even with a severe supply shortfall. A lower dwelling, stepped down below the outbuilding eaves with the patio set back, would probably have passed.

Transferable points

• Moderate less-than-substantial harm to a Grade II asset's setting can "substantially outweigh" the S4 benefits of one home even at 2.98 years' supply (DL ¶¶23, 26).
• S4(2) is not exhaustive: heritage harm outside the listed situations can still carry the S4 balance (DL ¶22).
• HE6 public-benefits weighing is run before, and separately from, the S4 "substantially outweighed" test (DL ¶¶25–26).
• Harm can arise even where the site is a "minor component" of setting, if the development dominates a key setting element such as a curtilage-listed outbuilding (DL ¶¶13–14).
• Self-build is a benefit only where there is a demonstrated local waiting list (DL ¶19).
• Meeting the L2(1)(d) criteria and DP3 does not override HE6 (DL ¶¶24–26).
• Appellant CGIs can supply the evidence of harm (DL ¶14).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Grade II listed 17th-century former Halfway Farm; curtilage-listed clunch stone outbuilding and yard walls are key components of setting (DL 8-10)
• Site is a triangular remnant created by construction of Chantry View Road; only a "minor component" of the setting (DL 13)
• Appellant's VuCity CGIs showed main section substantially higher than the outbuilding, with a raised patio level with its eaves (DL 14)
• Council supply 2.98 years (1 April 2025 position) (DL 23)
• Revised scheme following earlier refusal of a larger dwelling (24/P/00116); Thames Basin Heaths SPA UU accepted (DL 4, 12)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.