Appeal 3302052
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
5 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
described as the erection of single-storey rear, front and first floor side extensions; conversion of existing garage to habitable room with associated changes to fenestration. Hip to gable and rear dormer roof extension with installation of 1no front rooflight to facilitate loft conversion, and installation of solar panels to front roof slope.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The immediate area comprises two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings. While dwellings have been extended to the side, there is a sense of spaciousness at roof level between the built form. This spaciousness is achieved by the lateral separation of roof forms in combination with their design and this makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.
The two-storey extension would extend toward 10 The Ridge and it would incorporate a gable ended roof with a small, hip at the apex. This side roof design is not replicated within the immediate area and its bulk, mass and design would substantially erode the space between the appeal site and No 10. This would fail to be sympathetic to the existing sense of spaciousness causing unacceptable visual harm to the character and appearance of the area.
Solar panels would not in themselves be unacceptable, however the spread of panels in combination with the size and scale of the roof would exacerbate the visual harm I have set out above. The appellant suggests alternative roof tiles could be used to soften the impact of the solar panels, however, this would not overcome the unacceptable roof design.
The proposed solar panels would promote renewable energy which is an important consideration in reducing climate change. This carries weight in favour of the proposed development, however, character and appearance is also a legitimate planning consideration. The unacceptable design of the roof is therefore not outweighed by the benefits which may be derived from solar panels.
While roof designs differ within the wider area, my assessment is based on the local street scene. Local distinctiveness is an important consideration, and the presence of similar development elsewhere does not automatically indicate that it would be acceptable in other circumstances. I have considered this appeal on its own merits and in its own context as set out above.
Accordingly, the proposed development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area and there would be conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies CS8 and DM10 of the Royal Borough of [name] 2012 and Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021. All of which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development is sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Conclusion
As such, the proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be 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 1630No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 December 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 6 December 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3302052
- Application reference
- 22/00570/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
- 91 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
- 28 June 2022
- Valid date
- 27 July 2022
- Start date
- 29 September 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 April 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 22 December 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
- 25679
- 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