Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

Appeal 3293598

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 works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

8 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 conversion of existing garage to a study, replacement of existing garage door with a new double glazed window.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the conversion of existing garage to a study, replacement of existing garage door with a new double glazed window at [site address] , [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/03317/HOU, dated 14 October 2021, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

  2. Section 03

    Preliminary Matters

    The reason for refusal does not specifically refer to the [name] (2012) when referencing Policies DM9 and DM10. However, this is implied in the officer report. The appellant has made reference to the correct policies and accordingly has not been prejudiced as a result.

    The Council has not raised concerns in relation to the character and appearance of the proposal or its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. Having regard to the evidence before me and my own observations, I have no reason to come to a different conclusion.

  3. Section 04

    Main Issue

    The main issue is whether or not the proposed development would cause inconsiderate parking, adversely affect traffic congestion or compromise highway safety.

  4. Section 05

    Reasons

    The appeal site is a three-storey terraced dwelling. Like many of the other houses in the terrace, the dwelling has an integral garage which partially projects from the front elevation. An area of hardstanding is laid out in front of the garage, which via a crossover, connects to the highway.

    The main parties are in broad agreement that the restrictive dimensions of the existing garage are such that its conversion to a study would not amount to the loss of an existing off-site parking space. Following my site visit and having regard to the information before me, I have no reason to conclude otherwise.

    Therefore, at present the occupiers of the house are likely to park any vehicle that they own either in front of the garage or on the highway. Whilst there is some doubt as to the exact length of the hard standing in front of the garage, this would not change as a result of the proposal and thus neither would how or where the occupiers are likely to park their vehicle.

    There is no suggestion that the current situation already results in inconsiderate parking, and I note that there is permit parking available in [address] and that there are also some parking spaces on [address]. There is no indication that the occupants of the appeal property would not be entitled to a parking permit as a result of the development or that this would lead to a level of parking stress which in turn might cause congestion or raise highway safety concerns.

    Accordingly, given the evidence before me, I do not find that the proposal itself would lead to inconsiderate parking or adversely affect traffic congestion or compromise highway safety. Therefore, the proposal would accord with Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Council’s Core Strategy (2012) which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development does not adversely affect levels of parking or contribute to congestion or raise highway safety concerns.

    The proposal would also comply with Paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which amongst other things, seeks to ensure that developments are not permitted if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

  5. Section 06

    Conditions

    In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition is required in the interests of certainty that lists the approved plans. A condition is also required to ensure the external materials match the existing building and thus protect the character and appearance of the area.

  6. Section 07

    Conclusion

    For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions below.

  7. Section 08

    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: OS Location Plan – P_001 Location Plan/Existing Site Plan – P_002 Proposed Plan & Elevations – P_010 Existing & [address] – P_011

    The external materials used in the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building. END

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 272No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    26 May 2022Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    17 May 2022 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3293598
Application reference
21/03317/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
23 February 2022
Valid date
23 February 2022
Start date
10 March 2022
Planning authority decision date
13 December 2021
Appeal decision date
26 May 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
15777
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