Appeal 6006086
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
3 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 a part single part two storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is invalid.
Section 03
Reasons
I have reviewed the plans for the appeal and it is quite clear that the extension has been built on the same alignment as the party wall and therefore half of its width is on land outside the ownership of the appellant, on land belonging to the owners of [address].
From vetting the planning history, an earlier application (25/00675/REM) to regularise the present situation (the extensions being built wider than originally approved) was refused by the Council. This was partly on the grounds that by virtue of the encroachment of development into neighbouring land, that the proposal was not substantially the same as the original approval and could not be facilitated under S73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The Officer report for that earlier proposal stated that the S73 application could not be entertained when procedurally the appellant had incorrectly stated that they were the sole owner of the land when instead the adjacent neighbour’s land also formed as part of the site area. Thus, the applicant should have signed a [name] and served notice on the neighbour of the encroached land.
However, the subsequent planning application (25/00975/FLH), the subject of this appeal was again submitted with a [name], as opposed to a [name] and therefore cannot be deemed to be a legal submission as due process has not been followed. Consequently, I cannot determine this appeal and it is for the appellant to seek appropriate advice and liaise with the local planning authority as to their next steps.
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 9086No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 30 June 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 June 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6006086
- Application reference
- 25/00975/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
- Not recorded
- Appeal reason
- refused
- Type detail
- Householder
- Jurisdiction
- No Jurisdiction Associated
- Link status
- Not recorded
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- 0 hectares
- Floor space
- 5 m²
- Number of residences
- Not recorded
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- 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
- Invalid
- Decision category
- Other
- Received date
- 8 March 2026
- Valid date
- 18 May 2026
- Start date
- 19 May 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 February 2026
- Appeal decision date
- 30 June 2026
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- Not recorded
- Bespoke
- Not recorded
- 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
- Back Office
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 91194
- 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