# Meadow Cottage, Brook Hill, Brook, Albury

- **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
- **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, outbuilding-as-extension, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, householder, transitional-no-consultation

## 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
- **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 weight).** 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

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010525
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e198053b-0cda-4e8f-882c-d12a30f716b3

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010525.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.