Epsom and Ewell Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Epsom and Ewell?
Learn how selected local examples treated fences, walls and plan changes affecting area character.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 47 of 67
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 13
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 33
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 39
- of 47 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Epsom and Ewell LPA (51.339172, −0.261422). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council appeal findings
Fences, walls and plan changes affecting area character
Some selected extracts give only conclusions. One dismissed example records no character harm, and the selected outcome mix differs from the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Changes found harmful to area character
A replacement fence still harmed the area
Although it replaced a visually poor fence, the Inspector found the new fence inappropriate and harmful to the area’s character and appearance.
Front wall and gate harmed the area
The Inspector concluded that the proposed front wall and gate would harm the area’s character and appearance.
New dwelling found harmful
The selected extract concludes that the proposed dwelling would harm the area’s character and appearance, but does not show the earlier assessment.
Helped or needed
Altered plans not harming area character
No harm from altered approved plans
The Inspector concluded that alterations to previously agreed plans did not harm the surrounding area’s character and appearance. The selected extract does not show why.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- What specific fence, wall or building change does the notice call harmful?
- Which part of your proposal is said to harm the area’s character?
- Do amended plans show why that harm would be avoided?
The extract for appeal 89834 omits its earlier assessment, so it cannot show which plan feature helped. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
4 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey front, side and rear extensions and roof extensions following demolition of existing outbuilding without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 23/01292/FLH, dated 19 December 2023.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect that varying condition 2 would have on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons outlined above, the alterations to the plans previously agreed under permission 23/01292/FLH are not harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The alterations would not conflict with Policy CS5 of the [name] (2007) or Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015) insofar as they seek a high standard of design for all development including extensions to existing buildings.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
4 April 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Lower ground extension below patio. 3.5m ground floor pitched roof rear extension with 2 x skylights, rear doors and large window and internal alterations. [name] above existing ground floor porch with internal alterations. Loft conversion with adjustment to roof form and two characterful rear dormer windows to rear hip and skylight above flat part of roof.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As outlined above, the proposed changes would alter the character and appearance of the host property but not to a harmful degree. These alterations would not affect the elements of the dwelling which complement and contribute to the surrounding area, thus also resulting in no harm to its character and appearance. Therefore, the appeal proposal does not conflict with Policies CS5 of the [name] or DM9 and DM10 of the DMPD, which collectively seek to retain local distinctiveness and character via good design.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
28 September 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a proposed new dwelling with modifications to existing building and landscape design with new cross-over.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Considering the above, I find that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would not comply with Policies CS1 and CS5 of the Council’s Core Strategy, July 2007 or with Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Council’s Development Management Policies Document, September 2015. These policies include that development should protect and compliment the built environment, reinforce the local distinctiveness of streets are areas including in layout, plot width and format, enhance townscape and make a positive contribution to visual character and appearance. It would also not be consistent with the Framework which seeks to ensure that development adds to the overall quality of the area, is visually attractive as a result of good layout, sympathetic to local character including the surrounding built environment and maintains a strong sense of place using the arrangements of streets and spaces to create attractive and distinctive places to live.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
26 February 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a new fence.
Issue identified by the Inspector
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On balance I conclude in respect of the main issue that the new fence, although replacing a visually poor fence, would be inappropriate, having a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the area. To allow it would therefore be contrary to the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS5 of the of the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy (Adopted 2007) and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Development Management [name] ([name] 2015), which, along with other objectives, require development to respect the character and local distinctiveness of a street or area.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
20 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
proposed front wall and gate.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area in conflict with Policy CS5 of the [name] and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Development Management [name], 2015. These policies, in summary, require development to reinforce local distinctiveness and character, with essential elements contributing to the character, maintained or enhanced.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2