Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3309336

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 works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

10 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

demolition of existing rear extensions and construction of a new single storey ground floor extension.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing rear extensions and construction of a new single storey ground floor extension at [site address] , Tolworth, [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/02229/HOU, dated 6 July 2022, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

    The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings R004-07; R004-08; R004-09 and R004-10.

    The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan no. R004-09.

    Prior to the construction of external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted, a [name] demonstrating how the development will achieve the highest standards of fire safety shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Strategy and thereafter maintained.

  2. Section 03

    Preliminary Matters

    An accurate location and block plan has been submitted with the evidence provided by the Appellant and this reflects the situation I witnessed on my site visit.

  3. Section 04

    Main Issue

    The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers having regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight.

  4. Section 05

    Reasons

    [site address] is a two storey semi-detached dwelling on a predominantly residential street. The property has fencing and some landscaping providing boundary treatments between neighbours in the rear garden. Both immediate neighbouring properties appear to have been extended at the rear.

  5. Section 06

    Living Conditions of neighbouring occupiers

    No. 23 is detached from no.21 and located on the south side of the property. The windows are located on the north elevations of no. 23, which are set away from the shared boundary of the two properties by a reasonable distance and face the existing extensions on the rear of no. 21 and intervening boundary treatments. A window is located at ground floor level on the rear elevation of no. 23.

    Due to the presence of the existing single storey extensions, the separation distance from the shared boundary and the orientation of the properties, the proposed extension would not cause a significant harmful impact on the neighbouring occupiers of no. [address] of loss of daylight, sunlight or have an overbearing impact or loss of outlook.

    The proposed extension would be located on the south side of no.19. The existing rear elevation of no. 19, the adjoining neighbour, has a single storey lean-to extension that is predominantly a brick structure with a clear roof, described in the supporting information as a conservatory, along with a brick single storey rear extension with a flat roof. The conservatory is proposed to be removed as shown on the plans in order to facilitate the proposed extension as it will form a new boundary wall, which the neighbour at no. 19 is in support of, as demonstrated in their representation.

    Whilst the proposed extension would create overshadowing of the rear of no. 19 due to the height and depth of the extension at certain times of the day, the removal of the conservatory would allow for daylight to penetrate the main part of the dwelling at ground floor level.

    In addition to this, the main garden serving number 19 is located to the side of their property away from the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed extension would not detrimentally affect the enjoyment of the garden for neighbouring occupiers. Although some overshadowing would likely occur during the day due to the orientation of the properties, it is not considered that this would have a significant detrimental effect on the daylight or sunlight to the neighbouring property or have an overbearing impact or cause a loss of outlook.

    Accordingly, the proposal would not have material detrimental effect upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers having regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight. The extension would therefore be compliant with [name] 8 and DM10 of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Local Development Framework Core Strategy Adopted April 2012 and Policy D3 of the London Plan Adopted March 2021 which between them seek to ensure good design that has regard to the living conditions of occupants and neighbours.

  6. Section 07

    Other Matters

    The site is located in [name] 2. However, I note that the Council considered the proposal did not affect flood risk. Given that extension would be set no lower than existing levels and floodproofing of the proposed development has been incorporated into the scheme where appropriate, I am satisfied that the extension will not increase the risk of flooding to occupiers, nor the risk of flooding elsewhere.

  7. Section 08

    Conditions

    To meet legislative requirements, a condition shall be imposed to address the period for commencement. I shall also impose conditions for the following

  8. Section 09

    reasons.

    A condition is necessary for materials to be in accordance with those set out on the approved drawings to maintain the character and appearance of the area.

    In order to comply with the requirements of Policy D12 of The London Plan 2021 (March 2021) a condition is necessary for a [name] to be provided to the Council for approval.

  9. Section 10

    Conclusion

    For the reasons set out having regard to the development plan as a whole and all other matters raised, the appeal is 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 5290No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    9 May 2023Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    1 March 2023 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3309336
Application reference
22/02229/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
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
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
19 October 2022
Valid date
19 October 2022
Start date
19 January 2023
Planning authority decision date
1 September 2022
Appeal decision date
9 May 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
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
32297
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