Appeal 3301153
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
for ‘existing detached garage roof raised following felling of tree’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for ‘existing detached garage roof raised following felling of tree’ at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, ref: RU 22/0145 dated 25 January 2022 and the plans submitted with it.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The development has taken place and therefore this is a retrospective proposal.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
[address] is a long cul de sac of a mixture of houses and bungalows, many of which have been extended or have outbuildings to the rear. No.37 is a detached bungalow sited within a row of bungalows of the same design with a gabled frontage. These properties generally have a driveway to the side with a garage to the rear. The garages together with backland development, including a bungalow (Nos.37a and 37b) which has its access drive running along the appeal property’s southern boundary, are visible through the gaps between the bungalows.
The detached garage has an asymmetrical pitched roof and is set back from the property. The plans indicate that the ‘existing’ garage (before the development took place) was the same design and that the height has been raised by just under 1m. The height is still significantly lower than that of the host property and in my opinion, it is read in the street scene as an ancillary building and reflects the general pattern of development along [address].
The garage is large and will be visible from those properties close to the appeal site. However, the proposal, as applied for, is only for the raising of the roof and thereby there is no change to the general form of the building or its proximity to the neighbours.
Overall, in my view, the building maintains a subservience to the host property, and the resultant height does not have a significant overbearing or visually intrusive impact to be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the proposal complies with the general requirements of policy EE1 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan which expects development to respond to the local context.
Section 06
Conclusion and conditions
As the development has already taken place conditions relating to a timeframe for implementation and compliance with plans are not necessary. The Council has suggested a condition to ensure that the building is not used as a separate dwelling. The appellant explains that the increased roof height was to accommodate a car ramp to facilitate working from home as a mechanic during the covid lockdowns, and it is now used to work on cars as a hobby. As this proposal relates to an existing garage, I do not consider such a condition would be reasonable or is necessary given the siting and form of the building.
I thereby conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
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 362No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 5 September 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 August 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3301153
- Application reference
- RU 22/ 0145
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Runnymede Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000212
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
- 39 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
- 15 June 2022
- Valid date
- 15 June 2022
- Start date
- 23 June 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 27 April 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 5 September 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
- 20240
- 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