Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

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 works

One-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.

  1. 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.

  2. Section 03

    Conclusion

    The proposal complies with the development plan as a whole and nothing indicates a decision otherwise.

  3. 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