Appeal 3297060
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
4 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 single storey extension with associated rooflights to a detached house.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions for the occupiers of No. [address] as regards outlook and light.
Section 04
Reasons
The proposed extension would be positioned with its flank wall 0.3m from the existing side boundary fence with No. 33, and as a single storey addition this accords with the Council’s guidance. The extension would have an eaves height of 2.95m with a pitched roof sloping up to a crown roof at a height of 3.75m.
The Council’s concern is the effect of the extension and in particular the eaves height on the triple panel side window at No. 33. I saw on my visit that this window is about 1m away from the boundary fence. I am satisfied that the oblique views in the outlook from the window and the daylight and sunlight it currently receives would be noticeably affected by the combination of the height and distance of the proposed extension, bearing in mind also its considerable length along the shared boundary.
For the appellant it is argued that this is a secondary window and as such should not be given the same protection as the principal window to the rear. Whilst this point merits some weight, I am satisfied that the size and layout of the room affected in this instance is such that the outlook and light that the triple window affords is important for the current and any future occupiers of No. 33.
Despite being an improvement on previous schemes, the appeal proposal would result in a significant loss of outlook and light that the window provides. The fact that the top section of the main side window of No. 33 is at present clearly in view from the other side of Imber Park Road and from the rear part of No. 31’s garden tends to confirm the difference that the extension would make compared to the existing boundary fence in terms of the aspect that it affords.
Reference is also made in the grounds of appeal to the effect that alterations and additions have had on the relationships between Nos. 29 & 31 and between Nos. 33 & 35. However, there are some differences between the circumstances in those examples and the current scheme, which in any event I consider that I should assess on its individual merits as assessed on the information provided in the appeal documents and the appraisal I made on my visit.
In summary, I conclude that the effect of the proposed side extension on the living conditions for the occupiers of No. 33 would be one of harmful conflict with Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Local Plan: Development Management Plan 2015, the Council’s Design and [name]: [name] 2012 and paragraph 130f) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.
For these reasons I dismiss the appeal.
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 204No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 July 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 June 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3297060
- Application reference
- 2021/4297
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Elmbridge Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000207
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
- 14 April 2022
- Valid date
- 14 April 2022
- Start date
- 28 April 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 March 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 27 July 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
- 18428
- 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