Appeal 3335568
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
a single storey rear extension and two storey side extension to replace existing side garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with regards to outlook and sense of enclosure.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property comprises a two-storey end-of-terrace dwelling located within an established residential area. The neighbouring mid-terrace dwelling at [address] sits within a very narrow plot and has a cramped rear patio area.
The proposed rear extension would feature a pitched roof with an approximate maximum height between 3.7m and 4m. As highlighted by the Council, I note there is a discrepancy between the plans with regards to the height of the rear extension. Even if the lower figure is correct, the extension would result in a substantial block of development with an overall height that would be a considerable margin above the height of the joint boundary fence. Given the narrow plot of No 38, the height of the proposed extension along the common boundary would be obtrusive and would unacceptably dominate the outlook from the neighbour’s rear facing windows and rear garden patio area.
The Council’s Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) recommends that a pitched roof rear extension should not exceed 4m. Notwithstanding that guidance, in light of the individual circumstances of the site, the height of the extension would be excessive. It would have an overbearing impact and trigger an undue sense of enclosure. It would thus significantly alter and erode the outlook of the neighbouring occupants who would be constrained between the proposed extension and the side wall of No 40.
Given the above, the development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with regards to their outlook and sense of enclosure. It would conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policy DM10 of the [name] (2012) and the SPD which, together, seek to ensure development proposals are well designed and have regard to the amenities of occupants and neighbours.
Whilst the proposal would conflict with Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) (2023) which seeks to ensure development proposals provide a high standard of amenity, I do not find that Paragraph 124 of the Framework, which is specifically quoted in the decision notice, to be relevant to this main issue.
Section 05
Conclusion
The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.
For the reasons given above 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 5063No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 11 June 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 May 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3335568
- Application reference
- 23/02272/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
- 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
- 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
- 15 December 2023
- Valid date
- 15 December 2023
- Start date
- 23 January 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 October 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 11 June 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
- 52277
- 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