Appeal 3330694
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
4 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
a roof extension incorporating a rear dormer window, single storey side extension rooflights and alterations to fenestration.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed rear dormer on the character and appearance of the host dwelling.
Section 04
Reasons
I saw on my visit that [name] is a dwelling with gables to the front, side and rear elevations - a design feature in common with nearby houses that also have gables to one or more elevations. The appeal scheme includes the removal of the rear gable and its replacement with a full width dormer extending to about 7.7m along the roof of the two-storey dwelling.
With its large size and noting that, contrary to the Council’s home extensions design guidance, the dormer extension would be at the same height as the ridge and set in only marginally from the eaves and sides, the outcome would be an addition that draws the eye as being both of excessive bulk and disproportionately large for the host dwelling.
I therefore share the Council’s view that the dormer would significantly harm the character and appearance of the dwelling, a judgement also made by two of the consultees on the application. I am aware that two other local residents are supportive of the proposal, but in my opinion neither they nor the grounds of appeal refer to issues of sufficient relevance or weight to alter my assessment.
I acknowledge that amendments to an earlier proposal have been made to alter the proposed dormer’s windows, including the removal of a Juliet balcony. However, in my view the fundamental objection to the appeal scheme is the excessive and harmfully disproportionate size of the roof extension to a house of an existing pleasing design. Nor does the appellant’s reference to alleged errors in the officers’ report go to the heart of the matter, and I therefore give them only limited weight.
The Notice of Refusal refers only to the effect of the development on the house itself. However, although the dormer has a rearward siting it would be seen from the public realm and from adjoining houses in the Close and nearby roads. I therefore consider it reasonable to conclude that there would also be harm caused to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
I appreciate that the appellant is seeking to increase family accommodation in the dwelling, but because the proposal is in my view clearly contrary to the principles of good design I consider that it would also be contrary to the relevant local and national planning policies. These are Policies CS8 and CS17 of the [name] 2011; Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge (Local Plan) Development Management Plan 2015 and Section 12: ‘[name] of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023.
For these reasons and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is 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 204No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 December 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 November 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3330694
- Application reference
- 2023/1619
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Elmbridge Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000207
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
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- No
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 4 October 2023
- Valid date
- 4 October 2023
- Start date
- 31 October 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 12 September 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 18 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
- 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
- 43883
- 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