Appeal 3317412
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
for a first floor side dormer extension, first floor rear extension and loft conversion.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Higher Green/[address] North Conservation Area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling within the aforementioned Conservation Area which is Arcadian in character comprising dwellings of a Arts and [name]. One particularly striking element of the host dwelling is the fact that it has significant catslide roofs to either side with there currently being a good visual gap at first floor level to the south east elevation and over the attached single storey garage of 39 Higher Green adjacent.
This existing gap affords a view through to a magnificent Cedar tree that provides high visual amenity to the street scene. The proposal would erode this visual gap and on viewing the appeal scheme from the east in particular, it would appear as an incongruous addition to the existing roof form which is highly visible from the public realm; appearing as a rather ill thought out, over-scaled dormer addition that would be bolted on to the side of the dwelling and being a case of form following function.
I note that the appeal dwelling is identified as a positive building in the Conservation Area Appraisal and I have no reason to doubt this categorisation, I accept there is a variety of designs within the locality, but nonetheless that does not mean that there should be a free for all where residential extensions are concerned, with each case being assessed on its own merits.
From this basis I consider that the proposed development would be of a bulky appearance that would form a disproportionate and conspicuous extension to the host dwelling, and combined with the erosion of the visual gap between it and no 39, I consider that the proposal would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
Consequently, the scheme would give rise to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset and no public benefits have been advanced that would outweigh this harm. The proposal is contrary to Policies CS1 and CS5 of the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Adopted Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DM8, DM9 and DM10 of the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Development Management [name] 2015 which together require proposals to protect and enhance the Borough’s heritage assets with high quality design required for all developments, having regard to Conservation Area Appraisals whilst ensuring that new developments, including for house extensions, contribute to the character and local distinctiveness of the street or area in terms of scale, layout, height, form including roof forms, massing and format, which includes space in between buildings.
Section 05
Conclusion
Therefore having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal 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 297No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 20 June 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 May 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3317412
- Application reference
- 22/01872/FLH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Epsom and Ewell Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000208
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
- 160 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
- 27 February 2023
- Valid date
- 27 February 2023
- Start date
- 20 March 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 25 January 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 20 June 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
- 34278
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21