Appeal 3302920
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
rear box dormer and alterations to roof with inset gable.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling, located on the south-eastern side of [address]. The house has a half hipped roof, with a front two-storey gable. Whilst roof form is mixed along the road, rear box dormers are common, and contribute to the established character of the area.
Given their prevalence in and around the appeal property, a rear-roof box dormer could conceivably integrate effectively with the host property and the wider street scene. However, in this instance the box dormer would extend well beyond the hip of the existing roof structure. This means it would be seen as a bulky add-on to the property, rather than an extension which integrates seamlessly with the roof profile of the house. This incongruity would be readily visible from the front of the property, which means it would harm the appearance of the appeal property itself, as well as the wider street scene.
The development would therefore harm the character and appearance of both the host property and the surrounding area. It would conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies CS8 and DM10 of the Council’s Core Strategy (2012). Together, these policies require new development to respond positively to the character of an area, through high quality design which is appropriate in scale, appearance, shape and roof form. The development would also conflict with the design principles set out in the [name] (2013). The SPD says box dormers should be inset from the sides and eaves of the roof by at least 500mm, and should complement the existing roof form of the property.
Section 05
Conclusion
The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, 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 640No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 31 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 19 October 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3302920
- Application reference
- 22/00684/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
- 15 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
- 12 July 2022
- Valid date
- 25 July 2022
- Start date
- 30 August 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 April 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 31 October 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
- 22775
- 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