Appeal 3277337
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
4 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
described as a retrospective application to retain the roof material as built.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the roof finish of the appeal building on the character and appearance of the Claygate Village Conservation Area.
Section 04
Reasons
The officer’s report explains that the felt roof of the building is at odds with the grey slate tiles approved under planning permission reference 2018/2476. For the appellant it is explained that the building was constructed with a slate roof in accordance with the permission but because of leaks, the roof covering had to be replaced.
I saw on my visit that there are a number of felt roof coverings in the locality, but these are on flat roofed outbuildings and dormers of a modest size. In contrast, the roof plane on the appeal building has an extensive area and its covering by felt is a finish that falls far short of what might be reasonably be expected for the appeal building and its location in the conservation area. Nor is there any evidence of a credible reason why a slate roof covering could not be installed that prevents water penetration into the building, provided the materials and construction of the eaves are of an appropriate standard.
In my view therefore, the felt covering is harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area. The fact that there are few if any views of the roof from the public realm lessens the harm caused, but the preservation of the conservation area from harmful development requires an holistic approach that necessarily includes the impact on private views. And in this case I consider that a felt roof covering on this scale is noticeably detrimental to the aspect from the gardens and rear windows of Nos. 1-4 [name].
For the above reasons I conclude that the felt roof would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Claygate Village Conservation Area. There would therefore be harmful conflict with Policies CS11 & CS17 of the [name] 2011; Policies DM2 & DM12 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan 2015, and the Council’s Design and [name] 2012.
Relevant Government policy in Section 16: ‘Conserving and Enhancing the [name] says that where a development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset (in this case the conservation area), this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. However, I share the Council’s view that the benefit in this case is primarily for the appellant rather than a public benefit that would outweigh the harm caused.
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 204No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 November 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 October 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3277337
- Application reference
- 2021/0846
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Elmbridge Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000207
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 1
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Yes
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 18 June 2021
- Valid date
- 18 June 2021
- Start date
- 21 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 24 May 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 18 November 2021
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 6245
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21