Appeal 3323889
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
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development having regard to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a two-storey, end-terrace house with front and rear gardens, set back from [address] by a wide intervening grass verge. The local neighbourhood is predominantly residential in nature.
The appeal proposal is for a loft conversion and rear dormer window. The mass and bulk of the dormer element would be clearly visible from the private amenity spaces of surrounding houses, representing a dominant feature that would have a jarring effect by virtue of its scale and extent across the roof of the property. The scheme would lack subservience to the existing ridge line, and there would be limited separation with the party wall to the adjoining house at [address].
I recognise that that there may be other instances of dormer windows in the roofs of dwellings in the local area, and have seen the photographs of existing development in the grounds of appeal. Nevertheless, development at other houses would be neutral considerations in any balance against planning harm, and I am mindful that each case must be assessed on its own merits.
On these grounds I am drawn to conclude that the scheme would result in harm to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area. It would contravene Policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019 and the Council's Householder Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Guidance 2004, which seek to ensure new development of acceptable scale and design. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________
Section 05
Conclusion
Given the foregoing matters and all issues raised, the appeal fails.
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 212No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 September 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 24 August 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3323889
- Application reference
- 23/00143/HHOLD
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000211
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
- 26 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
- 9 June 2023
- Valid date
- 9 June 2023
- Start date
- 7 August 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 26 April 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 18 September 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
- 38904
- 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