Appeal 3289988
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
6 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
first floor rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
There is considerable variation, even within pairs of properties, in the street with several dwellings having been altered and extended. This includes the materials, roof shapes and rear projections.
The proposed roof would be set down from the highest point of the property and hipped roofs are not uncommon in the area. However, the flat roof extensions to the rear at roof and ground floor level have retained a clear view of openings in the floors above and below the additions. This gives a coherence to the rear elevation and roofscape.
The proposed hipped roof, that would adjoin the existing building midway up the window above, would unfavourably contrast with the existing rear elevation of the appeal building. I did not see any similar examples of this in the street. While the external materials would be matching, the hipped roof in relation to the window position above would give a disjointed appearance to the rear elevation.
Although there would be limited views of the extension from the street, this confused roof and window arrangement would be obvious from nearby properties and their gardens.
Therefore, the proposed development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. It would fail to accord with Policy D3 of the London Plan and Policy DM10 of the Royal Borough of [name]. These, in part, seek to ensure that development responds to the context of a site and maintain and enhance local distinctiveness.
Section 05
Other Matters
The separation distance and mature landscaping limits views to and from the site with the [address] Conservation Area, which has its significance, in part from, traditional properties and woodland setting. This along with the variation in the built form nearby means the scheme would not adversely affect the heritage asset or its setting.
Sufficient garden space would remain, and the extension would not increase the existing ground floor footprint. Even if I were to consider the scheme would not lead to unacceptable effects on the living conditions of occupants of nearby properties, a lack of harm is a neutral factor and does not weigh in favour of the scheme.
Section 06
Conclusion
The proposed development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweighs the identified harm and associated development plan conflict.
Therefore, for the reason given above, I conclude that the appeal should be 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 151No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 February 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 7 February 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3289988
- Application reference
- 21/02183/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
- Planning authority code
- E09000021
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
- 31 December 2021
- Valid date
- 31 December 2021
- Start date
- 13 January 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 13 October 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 10 February 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
- 10416
- 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