Appeal 3327900
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
6 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 hip to gable roof extension with rear dormer and Juliet balcony and installation of 3 no front rooflights to facilitate loft conversion. Changes to flat roof to first floor front elevation. Fenestration alteration.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
I have adopted the wording for the description of development in the bullet point above used by the Council in drafting its decision notice, as it more succinctly describes the development proposed rather than that set out on the original planning application form.
Section 04
Main Issue
I consider the main issue in this case to be the effect of the proposed development on the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the character and appearance of the street scene and the wider area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property, [site address] is a detached two-storey dwelling. It is located in a road characterised by similar vernacular styled dwelling houses. The main house has a steep pitched roof. There is a two-storey flat roofed side addition, along with a single storey flat roofed rear extension.
I noted on the occasion of my visit that a number of neighbouring properties have been extended and altered. The design of the those extensions generally following the vernacular style of the host dwellings.
The appellant proposes remodelling the main roof and that of the side extension. The existing full hips of the main roof would be replaced by new gables with half hips. The flat roof side addition would have, when viewed from the street a hipped roof. In addition, a large box dormer is proposed to the rear roof slope with part flat and part pitched roof. The enlarged roof space would accommodate two additional bedrooms and an en-suite bathroom.
Due to the three-dimensional form, scale and overall bulky massing of the roof enlargement proposed, the roof as extended would appear as an incongruous and unattractive addition. This in turn it would cause significant visual harm to the existing relatively modest vernacular styled host property.
I therefore conclude in respect of the main issue, that while the proposed development would incorporate some typical architectural detailing using matching materials it would nevertheless cause significant harm to the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the character and appearance of the street scene and the wider area. It would therefore not accord with the objectives of Policies CS8 and DM10 of the Royal Borough of [site address] Local Development Framework - [name] ([name] 2012), Policy D3 of the London Plan ([name] 2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework as they, along with other things, relate to the quality of development and the need to protect the suburban character of the Borough.
Section 06
Conclusions
For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should 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 1184No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 November 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3327900
- Application reference
- 23/00806/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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 16 August 2023
- Valid date
- 16 August 2023
- Start date
- 20 October 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 26 May 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 20 December 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
- 44048
- 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