- Decision
- dismissed, 23 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: C Walker
- Authority
- Guildford (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6009962
- Application reference
- 25/P/01670
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Rear extension with first-floor overhang, entrance extension, full upper storey/loft conversion to bungalow and new linked triple garage (non-determination)
- Site context
- green belt
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB6(2), GB7(1)(b), GB7(1)(g)(ii)
- Development plan policies
- Guildford Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2019 Policy 2, LPDMP P2, Green Belt SPD 2023
- Main issues
- inappropriate development; openness; VSC
Summary
Extensions turning a Green Belt bungalow at Worplesdon into a two-storey house with a triple garage. Dismissed on non-determination. The additions were disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). The appellant's grey belt argument failed at limb (ii), because an extension adds no dwelling and so meets no unmet housing need, even though Guildford lacks a five-year supply.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The parties commented on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶4).
- GB7(1)(b): FAIL. "the proposal would transform the modest character of the existing dwelling to such an extent that it would be largely unrecognisable as the original building" (DL ¶13). "both calculations indicate a substantial increase in size" (DL ¶14).
- GB7(1)(g)(ii): FAIL. "whilst the Council are unable to meet the necessary five-year housing land supply requirement … as this proposal is for an extension to a dwelling, there would be no net gain in housing. As such, it would have a neutral impact on unmet housing need" (DL ¶17).
- Openness: harm (DL ¶18).
Planning balance
GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to Green Belt harm against moderate weight to energy and biodiversity measures and limited weight to improved access. VSC not shown (DL ¶19-25).
What made the difference
Adding a full storey plus a garage to a modest bungalow. The attempt to use the grey belt route for a householder extension was dealt with briefly: limb (ii) cannot be satisfied by housing need where no net dwelling results.
Transferable points
- The GB7(1)(g) grey belt route does not help householder extensions, because a lack of five-year supply is irrelevant where there is no net gain in dwellings (DL ¶17).
- For GB7(1)(b), disputes over the original floorspace figure need not be resolved where every calculation shows a substantial increase (DL ¶9, ¶14).
- Bulk, massing and "unrecognisable" transformation matter as well as height and plot ratio (DL ¶12-13).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(b) | fail | bungalow to two storeys plus triple garage; floorspace uplift 56% (appellant) to 75% (Council); bulk and massing make it unrecognisable; disproportionate (DL 12-15) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | fail | extension gives no net gain in housing, so neutral for unmet need despite lack of 5YHLS; self-build claim unsecured (DL 17) | |
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | inappropriate plus spatial openness loss, limited public views (DL 18, 23) |
| CC2 | benefit | moderate | green roof, ASHP, PV and modernisation (DL 19) |
Key facts
- Existing bungalow about 5.59 m high; proposed 6.22 m flat-roofed two-storey form (DL 12)
- Original floorspace disputed (242 vs 342 sq m); inspector held the dispute not fundamental (DL 9, 14)
- Guildford lacks a five-year supply, but an extension adds no dwelling (DL 17)
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.