# Church Cottage, 10 East Lane, West Horsley

- **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
- **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, original-building-baseline, openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, transitional-no-consultation, householder

## 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
- **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 weight).** 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011691
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f04b1c1c-9311-47a2-b1ee-29125615bb9b

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011691.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.