Appeal 3279300
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
5 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 extension with a mezzanine.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural matter
A new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 20 July 2021, just after the appeal was submitted. The revised Framework does not significantly alter my assessments in this appeal. I am satisfied that no parties have been prejudiced by my having regard to this change in national policy.
Section 04
Main issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of this part of [address].
Section 05
Reasons
[address] is a residential street characterised mainly by detached modern 2 storey houses, many of which like No 37 have a single storey garage to one side. The proposal is to build a first floor side extension over the garage and part of the kitchen to the rear.
The Surrey Heath Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (RDG) advises that extensions have the potential to erode gaps which contribute to visual amenity and character. No 37 sits on a looped segment of [address], where it forms a focal point in views along the street. In this situation, the existing first floor level gap between No 37 and No 35 next door is important to the appearance of the area, helping it to retain a suburban character rather than a more tightly developed urban feel.
Although the proposed extension would be set back slightly from the main front wall and set down slightly from the main roof, it would nevertheless block views over the top of the existing low garage, leaving only a very narrow gap between full height structures at Nos 35 and 37. The proposal would therefore appear as a cramped addition and would detract from the street scene.
I note that some other houses in the area have first floor side extensions over their garages. Most of these leave a larger gap and none are in the same situation as No 37. They have not changed the character of [address] so significantly that the proposal would fit in well here.
I conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of this part of [address]. It therefore conflicts with the aims of Policy DM9 of the [name] and Development Management Policies 2011-2028, Policies WNP2.1 and WNP2.2 of the Windlesham Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2028, Principles 10.1 and 10.3 of the RDG and the Framework, to secure high quality design that maintains important gaps between buildings.
For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.
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 890No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 16 December 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 30 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3279300
- Application reference
- 21/0432/FFU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Surrey Heath Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000214
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
- 17 m²
- 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
- 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
- 19 July 2021
- Valid date
- 19 July 2021
- Start date
- 25 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 June 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 16 December 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
- No
- 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
- 7747
- 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