Appeal 3278918
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
a first floor side and rear extension wrapping around the rear to make two bedrooms and a bathroom for family use.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed first floor side extension on the character and appearance of the [address] street scene.
Section 04
Reasons
I saw on my visit that the appeal property is one half of a semi-detached pair with No. [address] of paired houses on the same side of this stretch of [address]. Most of the houses, including No. 63, have front and side extensions which has closed the gap at ground level between the pairs.
In a number of instances the houses have additionally had first floor side extensions, with a case in point being No. 65 which is the adjoining dwelling to No. 63 on its north east flank. There is a further example at No. 61, the other half of the semi-detached pair with No. 63, albeit this extension is of a different design to the addition at No. 65.
Whilst the spacious character of this side of the Avenue has already been eroded by the front and side extensions, the officer’s report explains that most of these pre-date the adoption of its current planning policies and householder supplementary planning guidance (SPG). These include the 2004 SPG which says that in adding 2 storey side extensions to 2 storey houses the aim should be to set back the wall by the side boundary at least 1m throughout its height up to the eaves.
The appeal proposal would build on the full width and depth of the existing side extension and thereby leave no gap to the boundary. When seen alongside the side extension to No. 65, there would only be a nominal gap between the two houses up to eaves level. And as the officer’s report explains, the resultant continuous built form would have a visual terracing effect, harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene.
In this regard I give little or no credence to the assertion in the grounds of appeal that the proposal would not detract from the semi-detached nature of built forms as one of the elements of the townscape character and local distinctiveness of [address]. The same applies to the appellant’s view that spatial separation would be maintained with no terracing effect because of the lower ridge, the slope of the land and the physical profile.
In summary, I conclude that the proposed first floor side extension would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the [address] street scene. This would be in conflict with Policy CS5 of the Epsom & [name] 2007; Policies DM9 & DM10 of the Council’s Development Management Policies Document 2015, and Section 12: ‘[name] of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.
For these reasons I dismiss the appeal.
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
- 3278918
- Application reference
- 21/00375/FLH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Epsom and Ewell Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000208
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
- 0
- 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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 13 July 2021
- Valid date
- 13 July 2021
- Start date
- 7 October 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 April 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
- 6256
- 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