Appeal 3339116
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 detached garage to front.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is on the north side of [site address] (B280) in Oxshott. It is currently a detached two storey house with a detached garage to the east side. It sits in a spacious plot in a row of large residential houses in similarly-sized plots.
Planning permission has been granted for the construction of a new detached two storey dwelling with rooms in the roof space, dormer windows and single-storey rear outbuilding containing a swimming pool, following demolition of the existing house.
The proposed development is for a detached three bay garage with a floor of accommodation in the roof space. It would have two front facing windows in the roof similar to a mansard roof. It would be sited perpendicular to the frontage of the proposed replacement dwelling between the Lane and the dwelling, with its south flank facing the road. Other dwellings nearby have garages at the front, some of which can be easily seen from the Lane.
The proposed garage would be about 12m in length, about 8.1m in width and about 5.4m high. The footprint would be about 95sqm. It would be a substantial ancillary building. It would be visible from the Lane, particularly in winter when vegetation dies back.
The roof design would be very prominent with a flat crown roof, deep steep pitches and mansard style dormer windows. This would be highly incongruous with the streetscene in design terms. The predominant ancillary building roof style in the area is simpler and more subservient. The proposed scale of the building which includes upper floor accommodation exacerbates this incongruity. Whilst there are detached garages that have been constructed in the front forecourts of buildings in the immediate area the Council indicate that several of these pre-date the Council’s current development management policies and policy in the National Planning Policy Framework which placed greater emphasis on achieving good design.
The combination of the bulk, massing, height and siting of the building would be a poor design and one which failed to be in sympathy with the character and appearance of the area. I have borne in mind that the detailed design of the garage takes some cues from the proposed replacement dwelling and that it would be sited at a lower level than [site address] , nevertheless, this does not outweigh the harm which would result from the bulk, mass, height and siting of the building.
Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would unduly harm the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with policy CS17 of the [name] (adopted 2011), policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan (adopted 2015) and the National Design Guide (2019).
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 4043No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 June 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 23 May 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3339116
- Application reference
- 2023/3252
- 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
- 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
- 81 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 20 February 2024
- Valid date
- 20 February 2024
- Start date
- 12 March 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 January 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 17 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
- 52579
- 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