Appeal 3375845
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
to extend an existing loft conversion and add a new rear facing ground floor extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and area, and, whether the proposed development would have an adverse effect on protected species.
Section 04
Character and appearance
The site comprises a single storey bungalow constructed in brick and partly rendered with tile hanging and is set under a tiled roof. The proposal seeks to alter and extend the property including by enlarging the roof to create a large, flat roofed upper floor extension.
This upper floor extension has limited regard for the style and form of the existing dwelling. It would cut through the ridge lines including forming breaks in the roof slope to form windows, cross the line of the eaves and exceed the height of the existing dwelling. It would appear as an unsympathetic addition to the property. The proposal is of limited design merit and its adverse effect on the character of the property would be compounded due to its visibility from passing walking routes around the site.
I accept the existing house does feature a mix of styles and forms, but this is a part of its character and it is not a jarring feature in the street scene or rural landscape. I am unable to accept the appellant’s suggestion that it is prosaic and undistinguished. Even if I were to accept this, it would not represent a justification for introducing a bulky flat roof extension as is proposed here.
The proposal therefore conflicts with policy DM9 of the [name] and Development Management Policies 2012 (SHCSDMP) and Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2017 as it is not of a high design quality.
Section 05
Effect on protected species
The proposed development would involve alterations to the roof where there is the potential for an impact upon bats. No preliminary roost assessment or other form of ecological appraisal has been undertaken. Therefore, it has not been shown that the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on protected species and it is thus contrary to policy CP14 of the SHCSDMP insofar as the development would result in harm to, or loss of, features of interest for biodiversity.
The appellant has suggested that a condition could be imposed to investigate whether bats are present prior to commencement of the development. However, as bats are protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, even if I were minded to approve the proposed development, a condition to require bat surveys prior to the commencement of development cannot lawfully be imposed.
Section 06
Conclusion
The proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the property and surrounding area and detrimental to protected species. The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with it. The appeal is 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 5437No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 3 February 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 January 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3375845
- Application reference
- 25/0548/FFU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Surrey Heath Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000214
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
- 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 14 November 2025
- Valid date
- 21 November 2025
- Start date
- 21 November 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 16 September 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 3 February 2026
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
- 83725
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21