Appeal 3353983
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
Two storey side and rear extension at [site address] Application Ref: 2024/2014.
Section 02
Issue – effect on the character and appearance of the area
The large house on the appeal site is one of many other similarly sized houses of varying designs on the street. Despite the 2-storey filling of the gap between the existing house and the garage, the house would retain a pleasant sense of balance when viewed from the nearby street. Moreover, the inclusion of pitched parapets means that the proposed flat roofs won't be readily visible from the street or nearby land.
Notwithstanding the proximity of the proposed development to the house at number [address] (number 48), there would be a sizable visual break between the taller parts of these 2 neighbouring houses. Furthermore, the sections of the proposed development closest to the boundary with number 48 would be lower than the closest parts of the house on this neighbouring property. For these reasons, the development would not be cramped within the site or incongruous with nearby development. Instead, when viewed from the street, it would read as a subservient addition to the house, that would harmonise with other development in the area.
Consequently, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and accords with the related policies cited in the decision notice. Issue – effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook and privacy
Parts of the development would be close to the shared boundary with number 48. However, despite its length, from this neighbouring property, only the upper sections would be visible above the carport and garage/store; tall close-boarded fencing; and thick and well-established planting. Furthermore, and because those visible parts of the scheme would be several metres from the shared boundary, the development would not be overbearing or result in an oppressive sense of enclosure from number 48.
The first-floor window that would address number 48 would be obscurely glazed. Moreover, that part of it which would be less than 1.7m above the floor level of the room it would serve would be non-opening. As such, and because of the presence of the intervening carport and garage/workshop, it would not lead to a harmful reduction of either privacy or perceived privacy for the occupiers of this neighbouring property.
The proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook and privacy, and it accords with the related policies cited in the decision notice.
Section 03
Conclusion
The proposal complies with the development plan as a whole and nothing indicates a decision otherwise.
Section 04
Conditions
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 23-04 loc, 23-04 02 [name], 23-04 03 rev A, 23-04 04 [name], and 23-04 05. Reason: Certainty
The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building/dwelling. Reason: Protect character and appearance of area
Prior to the first use of the development hereby permitted, the-first floor window in its northwestern elevation shall be fitted with obscure glazing and no part of that window which is less than 1.7m above the floor level of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Thereafter this window shall remain obscurely glazed, and non-opening for the first 1.7m above the floor level of the room it serves. Reason: Protect living conditions of occupiers of [address]
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 2706No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 31 March 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 March 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3353983
- Application reference
- 2024/2014
- 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
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 17 October 2024
- Valid date
- 17 October 2024
- Start date
- 31 October 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 20 September 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 31 March 2025
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
- 67184
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21