Appeal 3291167
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
9 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
‘Conversion of existing garage to habitable space with associated changes to fenestration and installation of 1 no. rooflight. Erection of single storey rear and side extensions’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ‘Conversion of existing garage to habitable space with associated changes to fenestration and installation of 1 no. rooflight. Erection of single storey rear and side extensions’ at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/03496, dated 01 November 2021, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.
Section 03
Application for Costs
An application for costs was made by [name] against Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Council. This application is the subject of a separate
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the road network and highway safety.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site is a semi-detached dwelling with an attached garage, situated within [address], a small, planned estate. Properties in [address] and the immediate surroundings benefit from either a single-width garage or an off-street parking space. Each dwelling generally has only a single space or garage and, as such, there is strong demand for on-street parking in the vicinity.
The appeal proposal seeks to convert the attached garage of the appeal site into additional residential accommodation. In doing so, the garage space would no longer be available for parking and a single additional vehicle would therefore be parked on the road. Despite there being localised parking stress, a single additional vehicle could be accommodated within the existing street network and estate, as [address] is not subject to controlled parking. In the vicinity there are the usual parking restrictions at junctions, corners and on the busier main road, which would ensure any additional vehicle parked on the street would not create unsafe conditions for road users and pedestrians. As such, a single additional vehicle would not pose a risk to highway safety.
Whilst a single vehicle increase in on-street parking might result in some inconvenience, it would not have a severe residual cumulative impact on the road network in respect of congestion.
For these reasons, the appeal proposal would accord with policies DM9 and DM10 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (CS), adopted in 2012, and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These policies seek, amongst other things, development of a high-quality standard of design which has regard to local traffic conditions, and which does not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe cumulative impact on the wider road network.
Section 06
Other considerations
The Appellant’s grounds of appeal outline that the appeal proposal seeks to provide additional accommodation within the dwelling for an older person. The appeal proposal thereby seeks to meet the existing and future health, housing and welfare needs of an older person. This weighs further in favour of the proposal.
An extant planning permission, Council Ref.19/00240/HOU, exists for conversion of the garage into residential accommodation at the appeal site. Since planning permission has been granted for that scheme and there is a reasonable likelihood the development would take place as permitted, the permitted scheme constitutes a realistic ‘fallback’ position and a material consideration. The parking space within garage would also be lost under this permitted scheme. [name] reached an alternative conclusion in respect of the relevant policies of the development plan, this consideration would have indicated that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with
Section 07
Conditions
I have imposed the standard conditions in respect of time limit and plans, to ensure the development is undertaken in a timely manner and in accordance with the approved plans. The Council has also requested an additional condition relating to secure cycle storage; given the nature of the proposal, I consider this condition to be necessary and reasonable given the nature of the development proposed.
Section 08
Conclusion
For these reasons, the appeal proposal accords with the relevant policies of the development plan, in so far as they are consistent with the Framework. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Section 09
Schedule of Conditions
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Plan 19-001-001, [name] 19-001-003, [name] 19-001-004.
Prior to beneficial occupation of the development hereby approved, details of secure cycle parking facilities to serve the development to which this permission relates shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The cycle parking facilities shall be provided prior to the occupation of the development and thereafter retained for the use of cycle parking.
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 254No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 8 March 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 21 February 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3291167
- Application reference
- 21/03496/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
- 8 m²
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 21 January 2022
- Valid date
- 21 January 2022
- Start date
- 4 February 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 13 January 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 8 March 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
- Yes
- 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
- 11953
- 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