- Decision
- dismissed, 22 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: J Bell-Williamson
- Authority
- Guildford (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6010525
- Application reference
- 26/P/00345
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Detached oak-framed garage/carport (about 3.9 m high)
- Site context
- green belt, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(b), GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- Guildford Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2019 P2
- Main issues
- disproportionate extension; openness; VSC
Summary
A detached oak carport treated as an extension. With previous additions it would take the dwelling just over 73% above the original, which is disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). It was dismissed; nothing weighed in its favour.
Issues and findings
- GB7(1)(b): FAIL. "an extension … could include an outbuilding that is used ancillary to the main dwelling … No case is made that the proposed development would not be inappropriate … for any other reason" (DL ¶6). "The Framework does not employ a mathematical calculation … However, when viewed cumulatively alongside previous extensions, due to the increase in floorspace in a separate building of significant height, the appeal scheme would result in a disproportionate increase" (DL ¶8).
- Openness: "the introduction of a permanent building would inevitably lead to a loss of spatial openness … a demonstrable loss of openness, in both spatial and visual terms" (DL ¶11-12).
- Neutral factors: "the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour" (DL ¶13).
Planning balance
GB6(2). No considerations were advanced, so there was no VSC (DL ¶15).
What made the difference
Cumulative floorspace over the original, and the appellant arguing no alternative exception. The GB7(1)(e) garden-PDL route of PINS-6012162 was not raised (DL ¶6).
Transferable points
- Ancillary outbuildings are assessed as extensions under GB7(1)(b), cumulatively with past extensions (DL ¶6-8).
- About 73% over the original was disproportionate (DL ¶7-8).
- An open-sided lightweight carport still causes a spatial loss of openness (DL ¶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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(b) | fail | carport treated as extension; original 103 sqm, existing 145 sqm, proposed 178.5 sqm = just over 73% cumulative — disproportionate (DL 6-9) | |
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | demonstrable spatial and visual openness loss; no other considerations; absence of other harm neutral (DL 11-15) |
Key facts
- Cumulative increase just over 73% over the original building, including earlier extensions
- Lightweight open-sided structure on existing hardstanding between buildings, still counted as a loss of openness
- Grade II listed cottage; setting not assessed as appeal failed on Green Belt
- Framework change - "relevant policy approach has not fundamentally changed", no consultation
Related decisions
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.