Appeal 3308248
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
described as ‘increase in ridge height, roof alterations and dormers to front and rear roof slopes - to facilitate loft conversion.’
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling (No 79) and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a double fronted detached house with plain, rendered elevations beneath a shallow, hipped roof. The proposal includes substantial roof level enlargements, resulting in a flat ridge/crown top. The dormers would not be set down from a traditional ridge as seen in examples in the locality and would contribute to the massing at high level. The development would have a bulky and inelegant appearance which would overwhelm and harm the character and appearance of No 79. This prominent and incongruous form of development would be clearly visible in the street scene.
Properties in the surrounding area are varied in architectural styles and ages. This design variety affords a greater tolerance for design alterations. However, for the reasons set out the proposal would result in a jarring, discordant roof design that would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Although the appeal property is unlisted and does not stand within a conservation area, the proposal does not satisfy the requirement for high quality design which fits well into its surroundings.
As the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings, it conflicts with Policies CS10 and CS17 of the [name] 2011 and Policy DM2 of the Development Management Plan Policies, which in summary and relevant to this proposal require high-quality design, including appropriate scale, mass and height. The scheme fails to accord with similar guidance in the Council’s ‘Design and Character Supplementary Planning Document Companion Guide: [name] which also states that roof extensions should not ‘dominate the roof by being over-large’. There would also be conflict with the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 and the National Design Guidance 2019.
Accordingly, the appeal is 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 322No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 April 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 13 February 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3308248
- Application reference
- 2022/1385
- 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
- Unknown
- 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
- 4 October 2022
- Valid date
- 4 October 2022
- Start date
- 30 November 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 July 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 17 April 2023
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
- No
- 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
- 31189
- 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