Planning appeal decision
Greyfriars , Hogs Back, Guildford, Surrey, GU3 1AD
Planning appeal 3342386 at Greyfriars , Hogs Back, Guildford, Surrey, GU3 1AD (Guildford Borough Council) was dismissed on 14 August 2024 by Inspector O'Connor H, following a hearing. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the proposed development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and if so, the effect on openness (Appeal A).
the demolition of existing extensions to Greyfriars and outbuildings and the erection of a detached four bedroom dwelling
- Authority
- Guildford Borough Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- O'Connor H
- Postcode
- GU3 1AD
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the proposed development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and if so, the effect on openness (Appeal A).
- The effect on the significance and special interest of Greyfriars a Grade II* listed building (Appeals A & B).
- The effect on the character and appearance of the area, including consideration of the Surrey Hills National Landscape (SHNL) and trees (Appeal A).
- The effect on the Monkhatch Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) and protected species (Appeal A).
- The effect on the SPA (Appeal A)
- Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposals (Appeal A).
What decided it
The harm from inappropriate Green Belt development, heritage, character/appearance and protected species impacts was not clearly outweighed by the limited other considerations, so very special circumstances did not exist for the new dwelling in Appeal A, whereas the demolition works alone in Appeal B caused no harm.
For Appeal A, the combined Green Belt, heritage, landscape and ecological harms were not clearly outweighed by the moderate weight of benefits (heritage benefit from demolition, small housing/economic benefits), so the appeal was dismissed; for Appeal B, with no harm identified, the balance favoured allowing the demolition works.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy D3Policy D18Policy D19Policy P2Policy D1Policy P1Policy D4Policy ID4Policy P7Policy P5saved policy NRM6
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 153Paragraph 182Paragraph 205Paragraph 208
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in Guildford Borough Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2024
- Allowed15 October 20266008529Shortland Farm, Guildford Road, Ash, GU12 6DF
- Allowed14 October 20266009751Land South of Green Lane, West Horsley, GU23 6PQ
- Dismissed6 October 20266009810Hogs Back Farm Yard, Monkshatch, Compton, GU3 1DL
- Allowed5 October 20266012736The Cottage, Blanket Mill Farm, Goose Rye Road, Worplesdon, Guildford, GU3 3RQ
- Dismissed23 September 20266009962Pentire, The Avenue, Worplesdon, GU3 3RA
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®