Appeal 3355872
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
8 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
conversion of garage into habitable accommodation with the replacement of the garage door with window and addition of porch area to the rear, erection of first floor side extension including alterations to fenestration.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of garage into habitable accommodation with the replacement of the garage door with window and addition of porch area to the rear, erection of first floor side extension including alterations to fenestration at [site address] [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 24/00901/FLH, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule at the end of this decision letter.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the protected woodland trees adjacent the appeal site.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a detached property at the western end of a short cul de sac along the western side of [name] and within a predominantly residential area. To the west of the property is a large area of woodland, protected under a Tree Preservation Order 379/W1B which links to further areas of woodland to the north and to the south. This area of woodland is an attractive feature and part of the landscape distinctiveness of the local area.
The proposal seeks to convert the existing garage to the western side of the house to habitable space with a first floor extension over and add a single storey porch extension to the immediate rear of the garage.
The application was accompanied by a detailed arboricultural report and arboricultural impact assessment together with an arboricultural method statement. Although there were some factual errors in the reports, I am satisfied from the details of the report and accompanying plans that the correct property, proposals and trees were assessed. The Council’s Tree Officer has raised an objection although it is not clear to me, from the information provided, whether the Tree Officer had received and considered the submitted arboricultural information. There is no reference to the reports and accompanying information in the Tree Officer’s comments as reported in Officer’s report on the application.
There are no trees to be affected within the appeal site itself. There are a small number of trees in adjacent gardens, but these are a sufficient distance from the development that they would not be directly affected, subject to appropriate protective fencing being in place during the construction works..
There is a reasonable distance between most of the trees within the adjacent woodland area and the boundary of the site. Within the adjacent woodland there is one ash tree fairly closely sited to the boundary with the site, approximately in line with the existing garage. The submitted arboricultural assessment report has assessed that the proposed development would only marginally be within the canopy spread and root protection area of that ash tree within the woodland, closest to the site and the part of the site affected, namely the existing garage, which is already in place.
The ground floor habitable accommodation as a result of the converted garage would have windows to the front and none to the side and there would be no windows in the storage area to the rear with a lightweight porch beyond. At first floor the new accommodation would provide a dressing area and bathroom and the proposed side facing window would not serve a habitable space. Given the nature of the accommodation to be provided and the windows proposed to serve those spaces, I do not consider that the trees in the adjacent woodland would negatively impact the living conditions of the occupants of the extended house.
It is not clear whether the Tree Officer’s reference to pruning requests is specific to this particular property or a more general reference to properties adjoining the woodland. However, given the distance between the property and the woodland, and the detailed arboricultural report before me, I am not persuaded that concerns over future pruning requests and the removal of trees would justify withholding planning permission in the particular circumstances of this case.
The Tree Officer has also raised concerns about possible subsidence. The proposed porch would be very modest in scale and lightweight and the arboricultural report refers to utilising existing service runs rather than requiring new services. The position of any new services, if required, would also be controlled by
Section 05
condition.
Subject to the imposition of conditions that would ensure that all the recommendations of the arboricultural report are followed and protection put in place as recommended, I am satisfied that there would be no material harm to the existing trees within the woodland TPO 379/W1B and therefore no resultant harm to the woodland integrity and to the landscape character and distinctiveness of the local area. There would be no conflict with Policy CS3 of the Council’s Core Strategy 2007, Policies DM5 and DM10 of the Development Management Policies Document 2015 and the National Planning Policy Framework and in particular Section 12 and 15, all of which amongst other matters seek a high standard of design which respects the local context, including trees within the landscape.
Section 06
Conditions
In terms of conditions, the materials should match the existing to respect the character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area, and the approved plans should be listed for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of good planning.
Conditions are required to ensure the protection of existing trees, including in respect of service runs and that the works are carried out in accordance with all the details of the [name] submitted with the application.
In order to be effective, it is my view that the tree protection works require to be in place prior to any other development works commencing. The condition therefore requires to be a pre-commencement condition. In accordance with Section 100ZA (5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and The Town and Country Planning (Pre-Commencement Conditions) Regulations 2018, I have therefore requested and received the Appellant’s written agreement to the imposition of this
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that this appeal should be allowed.
Section 08
Schedule of Conditions
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1-193; 2-193; 3-193; 4-193; 5-193.
No site clearance, preparatory work or construction works shall commence on the development hereby permitted until the tree protection measures have been implemented in accordance with the measures set out in the BS:5837 [name] and Arboricultural Impact Assessment and BS:5837 [name] and Tree Constraints and Tree Protection Plan No: TPP- 01 [name], all under Ref: AC.2024.509 by Arbor Cultural Ltd and thereafter the development shall be carried out in full accordance with the information and protection measures set out in these reports.
Unless otherwise shown on the drawings hereby approved, no tree within the curtilage of the site shall be wilfully damaged or destroyed and no tree shall be removed, lopped, topped, felled or uprooted during the construction of the development hereby approved.
No service runs shall be provided within the root protection area of any tree to be retained at the site or on adjacent land unless details are first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. End of Conditions
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 257No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 March 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 26 February 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3355872
- Application reference
- 24/00901/FLH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Epsom and Ewell Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000208
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
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- No
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 20 November 2024
- Valid date
- 22 November 2024
- Start date
- 27 November 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 September 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 10 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
- No
- 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
- 65959
- 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