- Decision
- dismissed, 15 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: G Ellis
- Authority
- Guildford (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6011691
- Application reference
- 26/P/00241
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Single-storey rear orangery (25 sqm)
- Site context
- green belt
- Green Belt
- Yes
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(b), GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- Guildford Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2019 P2, Guildford Green Belt SPD
- Main issues
- inappropriate development; openness; VSC
Summary
A 25 sqm glazed orangery at a heavily extended Green Belt house. Dismissed. Cumulative additions of about 120% over the 197 sqm original building were disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), and a barn relocated to the site in the 1990s could not be added into the "original building" baseline.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Relevant policies "have not substantively changed"; no further submissions sought (DL ¶2).
- Baseline. The barn "was not part of the first building on site, nor was it there in 1948. Consequently, it does not form part of the original building" (DL ¶9).
- GB7(1)(b): FAIL. "the proposed orangery itself would be a relatively modest addition of 25sqm. Nonetheless, cumulatively with the other extensions, even without the barn, the scale of development cannot be considered anything other than a disproportionate addition" (DL ¶14).
- Openness. Limited spatial and minimal visual harm (DL ¶17).
Planning balance
GB6(2). The only benefits were modest temporary economic ones; a lack of neighbour or design harm is not a benefit (DL ¶20). VSC not shown (DL ¶21).
What made the difference
Cumulative history. A small addition fails where earlier extensions have already more than doubled the original building.
Transferable points
- Buildings brought onto a site after 1948 are not part of the "original building" under fn 40, even if they are old structures relocated (DL ¶9).
- Even a small extension is disproportionate where cumulative additions are about 120% (DL ¶14).
- Good design and no neighbour harm are policy requirements, not benefits (DL ¶20).
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 | original building 197 sqm; relocated 1990s barn is not part of the original building; cumulative extensions c.120% (208% with barn) → disproportionate even though orangery is only 25 sqm (DL 7-15) | |
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | inappropriateness plus limited spatial and minimal visual harm (DL 17-18) |
Key facts
- Original floorspace 197 sqm; total with proposal c.607 sqm (Council) including a 173 sqm barn relocated to the site in the 1990s
- Appellant tried to include the barn in the baseline to get a 61% figure; rejected
- Orangery not visible from the road
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.