Appeal 3328993
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 single storey rear and side wrap-around extension of a semi-detached domestic dwelling, and to enclose a front porch space with french doors and framed glazing, and to create access for off-street parking space at the front of the site with hard paving and to request a dropped kerb to the pavement to be installed in front of the site.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the dropped kerb and associated vehicular crossover upon the character and appearance of the area, with specific reference to street trees.
Section 04
Reasons
The application site is situated within Hillbrow, a pleasant tree-lined residential street where there are quite a number of dropped kerbs and vehicular crossovers over the pavement serving respective dwellings. On my site visit I had an opportunity to inspect a number of these and have also had regard to the photographs that the appellants submitted, evidencing such features in close proximity to street trees.
It did appear that the trees were generally in good health, insofar as it was possible to do ascertain during the time of year, however one thing that was very apparent was that in many of the cases, kerbstones and footway surfaces have been disturbed, with the latter also cracking and being pushed up in many circumstances.
Whilst not identified on the submitted plans there is a street tree outside the front of 12 Hillbrow, in close proximity to the proposed crossover where there is clear evidence of pavement cracking from the tree’s roots. Therefore it is highly likely that any excavations would disturb the roots of this tree. I note that no Arboricultural Impact Assessment or [name] has been submitted in order to demonstrate that the long-term health of the tree would not be detrimentally affected through root disturbance, damage and/or pruning.
Therefore, whilst I acknowledge the reasons for the appellants wanting to install the crossover, I consider that the long-term protection of this tree cannot be guaranteed; the loss of which would ultimately give rise to harm to the character and appearance of the area.
Therefore, I find the proposal contrary to the development plan and specifically Policy DM10 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Local Development Framework Core [name] 2012. This sets out design requirements for new developments and essential elements identified as contributing to the character and local distinctiveness of a street or an area which should be respected, maintained or enhanced, including landscape setting and features, whilst ensuring that development proposals should show that trees that are important to the character of the area are not adversely affected. The scheme is also contrary to Policy G7 of the London Plan 2021 which seeks to protect trees, stating that development proposals should ensure that wherever possible existing trees of value are retained.
Section 05
Conclusion
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
- 2 January 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 December 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3328993
- Application reference
- 23/01013/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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 5 September 2023
- Valid date
- 5 September 2023
- Start date
- 10 November 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 June 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 2 January 2024
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
- 44280
- 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