Appeal 3331607
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
side infill extension to square the existing house and a new pitched roof with rear first floor dormer.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a side infill extension to square the existing house and a new pitched roof with rear first floor dormer at [site address] , Surrey, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PLAN/2023/0506, dated 7 June 2023, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2305-148GW-001; 2305-148GW-002; 2305-148GW-003; 2305-148GW-004; 2305-148GW-005; 2305-148GW-006; 2305-148GW-007; 2305-148GW-008; 2305-148GW-009; 2305-148GW-010; and 2305-148GW-011.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling with a prominent gable on both its front and rear elevations. The surrounding area is characterised by dwellings that are varied in appearance, although most feature some form of front gable which is a distinctive characteristic of the street scene. A variety of roof forms are also displayed in the immediate area.
The Council raise no objection to the proposed rear extension which would sit above part of the existing ground floor and would incorporate a dormer window on the rear roof plane. Whilst the proposed two storey front and side infill extensions would be modest in size, the proposed extensions would necessitate alterations to the existing roof which would be raised in height overall by about 1.4m.
The proposed raising of the roof would add additional bulk at roof level. However, the roof would be of a simple pitched design and would be broadly reflective of the height of other dwellings along this part of [address]. Moreover, given the mixed character and appearance of dwellings along [address] which includes dwellings with a roof ridge parallel to the road, I do not consider that the proposed roof form would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.
In my view the proposal would retain the most important architectural features of the dwelling, including the front and rear gables. Whilst the roof would rise above the front gable, it would be sloping up away from it and as such, I consider that the gable would remain the most prominent feature of the front elevation of the dwelling. Whilst the increase in ridge height would be significant, the proposed roof form would not appear disproportionately large or bulky in relation to the remainder of the dwelling nor would it significantly distract from or overwhelm the main elevations of the host dwelling.
The proposed roof lights on the front and rear elevations would also be proportionate in size and would not overly dominate the roof slope. Furthermore, I find that the other alterations proposed such as the modifications to the driveway would not be materially harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
I therefore conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling or surrounding area. Thus, I find that it complies with Policy CS21 of the [name] (2012), Supplementary Planning Document ‘[name] (2015) and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) which collectively promote well designed developments which respect and make a positive contribution to the street scene and the character of the area in which they are situated.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be 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 334No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 January 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 3 January 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3331607
- Application reference
- PLAN/2023/0506
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Woking Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000217
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
- Unknown
- 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
- 57 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
- 19 October 2023
- Valid date
- 19 October 2023
- Start date
- 27 November 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 8 September 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 18 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
- 45033
- 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