Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3325428

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

7 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

the erection of a part single, part two storey front, rear and side extensions plus a part garage conversion into habitable accommodation.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for part single, part two storey front, rear and side extensions plus a part garage conversion into habitable accommodation at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, 23/0261/FFU, dated 15 May 2023 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions: - 1 The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans; 735.LOC, 735.BLO, 735.PRO, 735.01, 735.02, 735.03, and 735.04. 3 The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the extensions and alterations hereby approved shall match those of the existing dwelling.

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

    The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and the host property.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    No.160 is a detached chalet bungalow located on the northern side of [address]. The long road has a suburban character with the properties set back and trees adjacent to the road. The properties are a mixture of bungalows and houses which vary in style and scale with many benefitting from extensions and substantial alterations. The appeal property and its neighbour, No.162, are of the same design with flat roof dormer windows to the front and rear and are relatively modest in scale compared to others along [address].

    The scale and depth of the proposed extensions are limited. The gable projection would have a wide span but there would be no increase in the overall height of the property and the pitched form would maintain space to the side of the property at first floor level.

    Gable ends to the road are a characteristic feature of the area, including within the immediate vicinity of the appeal site with the neighbour to the other side (No.158) orientated with its flank to the road and the larger house at No.164 has a two-storey gabled projection to the front elevation. As such, while the proposed gable feature would notably alter the appearance of the appeal property it would integrate well with the local character and would not be unduly prominent in the street scene. Given the built context I do not find that the increase in massing would be out of keeping or that there would be a loss of space around the property. The slope of the roof helps to create a defined gap and the ridge line is to be set further away from the eastern boundary.

    The Council has raised no concerns with the other parts of the proposal which include a porch and a small extension to the western side of the property, and I have no reason to disagree.

    Overall, I find that the proposed extensions would be appropriate for the property and would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. Thus, the development would accord with policy DM9 of the [name] and Development Management Policies document, principle B3 of the Lightwater Village Design Statement and the overall aims of the [name], which together and amongst other things, seek high-quality design which respects local character.

  4. Section 05

    Other Matters

    [name] note the objections from the neighbours, based on my observations I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in any harm to their living conditions, a finding that is supported by the Council who have not raised this as an issue.

  5. Section 06

    Conditions

    Conditions are necessary in the interests of compliance with statutory requirements relating to the commencement of development and certainty in relation to the plans. In the interest of the appearance of the property and the character of the area, it is also necessary to secure the external materials to match the host property.

  6. Section 07

    Conclusion

    For the reasons set out and having regard to 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 362No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    11 October 2023Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    21 September 2023 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3325428
Application reference
23/0261/FFU
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Surrey Heath Borough Council
Planning authority code
E07000214

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
25 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
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
6 July 2023
Valid date
6 July 2023
Start date
25 August 2023
Planning authority decision date
15 May 2023
Appeal decision date
11 October 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
40088
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