Appeal 3292677
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
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
My attention has been drawn to a previous appeal concerning the site (reference APP/P5870/D/20/3248206). I shall have regard to this background when considering the merits of this proposal.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character of the dwelling and the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site relates to a two-storey, end-terrace house on the junction between [address] and [address] within the [name] housing estate. The plot lies opposite an area of open space.
Although it has been reduced to single storey, the width of the proposal when viewed from [address], at some 4.5 metres, is the same as the previous appeal scheme. The length of development facing [address] has been increased to approximately 12 metres, and as a result the footprint of the proposed would substantially exceed that of the existing dwelling.
The upper walls and roof of the element would be visible from the public highway to the front and side over the existing boundary gate and fence, and from the back gardens of neighbouring dwellings. To my mind, the excessive scale of the scheme would introduce a prominent and intrusive feature that would compete with the diminutive size of the host property. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________
The imposing appearance of the extension results in a dominant and boxy roof form, and this would be in stark contrast to the hipped roof of the main house. The gap to the side boundary with [address] would be significantly reduced, which would be out of keeping with the large majority of corner plots in the area, where a sense of spaciousness has been retained.
I appreciate that there would be no adverse impacts on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties, and the proposal would be constructed in materials to match the existing house. However, these matters do not outweigh the detriment that I have identified above. I have also been referred to the presence of other extensions that have been granted permission in the Borough. Nevertheless, additions to other houses would be neutral considerations in any balance against planning harm, and I am mindful that each case must be assessed on its own merits.
I conclude that the scheme would be injurious to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area. It would contravene Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 and the advice in the Council's Supplementary Planning Document 4: The Design of [name] and Supplementary Planning Document 14 '[name]. Cumulatively these seek to secure new development of acceptable scale and appearance.
Section 06
Conclusion
Having regard to the above and all matters raised, 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 212No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 August 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 26 July 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3292677
- Application reference
- DM2021/02339
- 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
- 78 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 13 February 2022
- Valid date
- 13 February 2022
- Start date
- 2 March 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 2 February 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 19 August 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
- 19560
- 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