Appeal 3339898
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
6 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 the erection of a single storey extension following the demolition of the existing single storey porch.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been published since the planning application was determined by the Council. Both main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the relevant implications for the appeal. I have had regard to the revised Framework in reaching my decision.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.
Section 05
Reasons
There is uniformity to the appearance of the dwellings within this terrace. Although this is a relatively short terrace, the uniformity to the rhythm of its appearance is visually pleasing and provides a distinctive quality to both its character and appearance. There is a break in the terrace with the adjoining property stepped back from the appeal property. However, this does not alter the rhythm to the uniformity of the appearance of the terrace.
The proposal, although modest in size, would alter the appearance of the host property and create an extension visually discordant with the distinctiveness of the terrace. Being out of keeping it would stand out as being an insensitive development within the street scene. Consequently, the proposal would be detrimental to the visual appearance of the area. Although not a visually prominent street scene the proposal would nonetheless bring about harm to the locality.
The neighbouring terrace hosts projecting garages to the front of properties. I saw that that terrace has its own distinctive character and appearance that is different to that to which the proposal forms part. This offers little weight in favour of the proposal. Therefore, the proposal can and should be considered on its own merits.
There is local support or the proposal and other residents have expressed a desire to undertake similar development. Whilst this may be so, this does not make an unacceptable development acceptable or justify the proposed development.
The proposal would provide additional living space for the occupiers providing study and storage space. Whilst this would provide a benefit to the occupiers well-being and living environment, this does not outweigh my above concerns or justify the proposal.
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the area. The proposal would, therefore conflict with Policies CS4 and CS17 of the [name] 2011, Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015 and the provisions of the Framework. These policies and Framework seek, amongst other matters, development to integrate sensitively with locally distinctive landscape and to preserve or enhance the character of the area.
Section 06
Conclusion
Having regard to the above findings, 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 309No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 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
- 3339898
- Application reference
- 2023/2850
- 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
- 9 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- 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
- 1 March 2024
- Valid date
- 1 March 2024
- Start date
- 21 March 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 12 December 2023
- 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
- 52586
- 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