- Decision
- dismissed, 18 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: C Walker
- Authority
- Guildford (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6009645
- Application reference
- 25/P/01540
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Chalet-style dwelling in the rear garden of Grandview House (non-determination appeal)
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- green belt, settlement edge
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt accepted)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- N6, N2(2), GB7(1)(g)(iii)
- Development plan policies
- Guildford Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2019 P2, ID3, ID4, P5, D2, Guildford DMP P7, D4, D5, D14, D16, South East Plan NRM6
- Main issues
- grey belt; sustainable location; SPA; ecology; privacy; character
Summary
A new dwelling in a Green Belt rear garden near Wood Street Village. It passed all four GB7(1)(g) limbs, including limb (iii), despite an unlit footway that changes sides of the road, because the footway is continuous and there is a demand-responsive bus at the drive end. So it was not inappropriate. It was dismissed on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (no mitigation secured), unsurveyed great crested newt risk, tree and privacy harm. The costs application was refused (copy at PINS-6009645-costs.pdf).
Issues and findings
- Transition. Parties given the opportunity to comment (DL ¶5).
- Grey belt, (g)(i), (ii), (iv): common ground (DL ¶8).
- GB7(1)(g)(iii): PASS. "Although pedestrians would be required to cross Broad Street at one point where the footway changes sides, and the route is not street lit, reducing its attractiveness during the hours of darkness and in inclement weather, it nevertheless provides a continuous and reasonably safe pedestrian connection to a limited number of local services and facilities" (DL ¶12). Demand-responsive bus: "no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that future occupiers would be unable to access the service" (DL ¶13). "recognising that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport choices will vary between urban and rural areas … a reasonably sustainable location in the context of its rural surroundings" (DL ¶14).
- Private drive without footway acceptable: short, good visibility, very few dwellings (DL ¶11).
- SPA: FAIL. "In the absence of an effective mechanism before me through which the payment of the tariff could be secured" (DL ¶21).
- GCN: FAIL. No survey; no exceptional circumstances for a condition (DL ¶29–30).
Planning balance
Not inappropriate, so no VSC. The final balance was framed as development plan conflict plus the Framework "taken as a whole". N6 "indicates that in such circumstances planning permission should be refused". Substantial weight to SPA and GCN harm against the considerable weight of the benefits (DL ¶55–56). The letter did not expressly name S5(5) or S5(2), though N6 functions as a refusal policy.
What made the difference
Ecology and habitats procedure, not Green Belt. On location, the site sits near the pass line: a continuous footway, even unlit and with a crossing, plus a bookable bus was enough for one dwelling in a rural context.
Transferable points
- A continuous footway can satisfy (g)(iii) for a single dwelling even though it is unlit and requires crossing the road where it changes sides (DL ¶12). This is a point against objectors whose case is only that the footway is on the far side.
- A demand-responsive bus counts unless eligibility limits are evidenced (DL ¶13).
- Sustainability is judged relative to the rural context (DL ¶14).
- Passing GB7 does not save a scheme that fails habitats (N6) or has no protected-species survey (N2(2)) (DL ¶56).
- Non-determination delay was unreasonable but caused no wasted expense where refusal was inevitable (costs DL ¶9–11).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| AnnexB:grey-belt | pass | common ground grey belt meeting (g)(i), (ii), (iv) (DL 8) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | pass | backland in a roadside hamlet, not isolated; pavement to Wood Street Village (school 800 m, post office 1 km, more services 1.6 km) is continuous but unlit, with one crossing where the footway changes sides; demand-responsive bus stop at the drive end (DL 9-14) | |
| TR3 | pass | "reasonably sustainable location in the context of its rural surroundings" (DL 14) | |
| N6 | fail | substantial | Thames Basin Heaths SPA 400 m-5 km zone; no mechanism to secure SAMM/SANG tariff, so adverse effect on integrity (DL 16-22, 56) |
| N2(2) | fail | substantial | red impact risk zone for great crested newts, 9 ponds within 500 m, no survey (DL 27-31, 56) |
| N3 | conflict | no arboricultural survey; boundary trees likely affected (DL 24-26) | |
| DP3 | harm | privacy conflict; about 10 m to neighbour's rear garden (DL 34-39); character itself acceptable (DL 44) | |
| HO7 | benefit | considerable | urgent need; self-build given limited weight as not securable; combined benefits considerable (DL 55) |
Key facts
- Backland plot on a private drive behind a ribbon of homes on Broad Street; Council called it a hamlet
- Footway to Wood Street Village is continuous but unlit and switches sides once, requiring a crossing of Broad Street
- Demand-responsive pre-bookable bus stop at the end of the drive; eligibility limits alleged but unevidenced
- Separate costs decision (partial award sought for non-determination delay) refused
Sources
- Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
- Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)
- 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.