Appeal 3285942
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
7 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
the erection of a first-floor side extension and extension of the existing ground floor flank roof.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The description of development is taken from the Council’s decision notice rather than the application form as it more accurately describes the development and therefore, I have used it for my decision.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reason
The appeal property is part of a short terrace of properties which have a cranked form and extend around the corner of [address] and [address]. This form is replicated on the other corners and the layout and openness around the road junction contributes to a sense of spaciousness and an appreciation of the original estate.
No.377A is an addition to the terrace and has a relatively limited triangular shaped plot. A single storey extension infills the area up to the side boundary and the proposed first floor extension would sit above, albeit slightly inset from the side elevation. The width of the extension would exceed the guidance in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document 4: The Design of [name] (SPD4), and while the roof would be set down the pitch would not fully align with the host property.
To the side, No.375, which is split into two flats, has an entrance door and first floor windows in its side elevation. The first-floor extension would significantly reduce the gap between these properties with the only meaningful space retained on the neighbour’s side. The gap would be less than those typically found between terraced blocks along [address], and notably the corner blocks have a greater separation. The introduction of No.377A has already altered the scale of this corner block, nevertheless, a sense of space to the side has been retained and the existing single storey element reflects the form at the other end of the block at No.180A. In my view, the loss of the gap would diminish the distinctive form and openness of the corner block and the prevailing pattern of development.
Overall, I find that the scale and form of the extension would be out of keeping with the host property and would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would thereby conflict with Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan (2018) and SPD4 which, amongst other things, seek development that is of high-quality design, respects the local context and is in sympathy to the original property.
Section 06
Other matters
I acknowledge the appellant’s desire to extend their property and that the materials could match the existing property, which at the time of my site visit was being rendered. Nevertheless, these matters do not outweigh the harm I have found and the conflict with the development plan.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons set out the appeal is 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 362No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 29 April 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 April 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3285942
- Application reference
- DM2021/01510
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Sutton
- Planning authority code
- E09000029
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
- 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
- 1 November 2021
- Valid date
- 1 November 2021
- Start date
- 22 November 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 September 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 29 April 2022
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
- 14501
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21