# Tylers Croft, Abbotswood Close, Guildford

- **Decision:** allowed, 17 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Walker
- **Authority:** Guildford (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6011786
- **Application reference:** 25/P/01230
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Self-build detached dwelling and garage in side garden, following demolition of existing garage
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4(1), HE6(4), HE9, N6
- **Development plan policies:** Guildford Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2019 D1, P5, Development Management Policies 2023 D4, D8, D18, D20, Burpham Neighbourhood Plan 2016 B-FD1, South East Plan saved NRM6
- **Main issues:** character and appearance including CA setting, Thames Basin Heaths SPA
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, conservation-area, self-build, housing-shortfall, garden-land, habitats-mitigation-secured, non-determination, drafting-slip, small-scheme

## Summary
A non-determination appeal for a self-build house in the side garden of a Guildford cul-de-sac plot next to the Abbotswood Conservation Area. It was allowed. Spacing kept the close's open character. There was "very low" harm to the CA's setting, which a single home's public benefit clearly outweighed. Thames Basin Heaths SPA mitigation was secured by a UU. Under S4 there were no substantial adverse effects. The letter does not say whether the parties were consulted on the new Framework.

## Issues and findings
- **Character: PASS.** "the proposed spacing between buildings would be sufficiently generous to maintain the spacious character of the cul-de-sac" (DL ¶12). Contemporary materials suited the "varied architectural style" (DL ¶13).
- **CA setting, HE6(4) (letter mis-cites "HE7(4)"): very low harm.** The slacker rear roof pitch "would be visible from the gardens of a limited number of dwellings within the CA ... it would not be readily visible from the public realm. I find that this would cause a very low level of harm to the setting of the CA" (DL ¶16). "the public benefits of providing an additional modest sized home within a sustainable location, in an area where there is an urgent and pressing need for housing, would clearly outweigh the very limited harm" (DL ¶18).
- **SPA, N6.** The UU had been completed and payment made, and Natural England's agreement was given substantial weight (DL ¶24).

## Planning balance
This was the S4 balance (DL ¶27). "I have identified no substantial adverse effects, nor a failure to comply with any one of the national decision-making policies which expect the refusal of planning permission in specific circumstances" (DL ¶28). With no 5YHLS, "the provision of even a single dwelling carries considerable positive weight". Self-build, secured by deed of variation, added moderate weight (DL ¶29). "the adverse effects would not substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶30).

## What made the difference
The corner-type plot gave enough spacing to avoid cramming. That distinguished an earlier dismissed appeal at 8 Abbotswood Close (DL ¶15). The appellant also had all the legal paperwork in place: a SPA UU with payment, and a deed of variation for self-build. Compare PINS-6010848, lost for want of exactly that.

## Transferable points
- Within settlements, S4 approval turns on the absence of "substantial adverse effects" or a refusal-type policy failure (DL ¶28).
- Very low less-than-substantial harm to a CA setting is outweighed by a single home where supply is short (DL ¶18).
- Self-build status is best secured through a planning obligation, not a condition (DL ¶36). Once secured, it attracts moderate additional weight (DL ¶29).

## Policy findings
- **S4(1): pass.** no substantial adverse effects and no failure of a "should be refused" policy (DL 27-30)
- **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** letter cites "policy HE7(4)" (sic; HE7 has no para 4 and a CA is designated, so HE6(4) is meant); very low harm to setting of Abbotswood CA from slacker rear roof pitch glimpsed from a few CA gardens; clearly outweighed by public benefit of a home (DL 16-18)
- **HE9: pass.** retains spacing and important boundary trees contributing to CA setting (DL 17)
- **N6: pass.** Thames Basin Heaths SPA - UU secures SANG/SAMM, payment made; NE agrees (DL 20-25)
- **HO7: benefit (considerable weight).** no 5YHLS - "even a single dwelling carries considerable positive weight"; self-build secured by deed of variation, moderate extra weight (DL 29)

## Key facts
- About 6.2m to host dwelling and 7.5m to Thistledown boundary; spacing comparable to others in the close (DL 10-11)
- Self-build secured by deed of variation to the UU, not by condition (enforceability) (DL 3, 36)
- Letter refers to "a net gain of four dwellings" in the SPA section - a slip for one (DL 22)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011786
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/661dbf49-9091-4a10-b931-6c8439c79775

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011786.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.