Mole Valley District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Mole Valley?
See which visible changes helped and what the dismissed extracts leave unexplained.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 74 of 102
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 29
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 44
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 69
- of 74 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: Mole Valley LPA (51.212314, −0.325092). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Mole Valley District Council appeal findings
Extensions, fencing and garages in Mole Valley
The selected examples lean more toward allowed appeals than the matched local set, and the dismissed extracts give only conclusions, not the features that caused harm.
Counted against appeals
Fencing and planting found harmful
Front fence did not meet requirements
The Inspector concluded that the 1.83m front-garden fence did not satisfy the stated local-character design requirements.
Boundary planting and fencing harmed character
The Inspector concluded that side-boundary laurels and fencing would harm the surrounding area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Ridges, materials and less built form
Side-and-rear location reduced prominence
The Inspector said the extension’s bulk and mass would not be prominent in the street scene because it sat to the side and rear.
Scale, form and materials met requirements
The Inspector concluded the proposal met stated requirements on scale, height, massing, proportion, form and materials.
Replacing outbuildings reduced visible building
The modest garage replaced two modest outbuildings, reduced above-ground footprint and put much of its structure underground.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify the precise visible harm?
- Does the refusal address ridge height, bulk and street position?
- Does the refusal say whether visible built form would increase?
Two selected Mole Valley dismissals give conclusions without earlier reasoning, so this review cannot identify their specific visual objections. 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
3 examples
6 February 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
two-storey side extension, single storey front and rear extensions, first floor rear extension and associated fenestration and internal alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[name] accept the proposal would not appear subservient to the host dwelling, maintaining the ridge at the side would not be harmful to the visual appearance of the dwelling or the character and appearance of the area. The two-storey rear extension has a lower ridge line than the host dwelling and the bulk and mass of the proposal would not be prominent on the street scene due to its location to the side and rear of the dwelling. The SPD is guidance and not policy, but despite this, the SPD allows for a proposal to match the proportions detailing and fenestration on the host dwelling so that the proposal would not be readily recognisable as an extension. This is considered most successful with detached, individually designed houses as in this case.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
2 January 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
‘demolition of detached garage and part demolition of chalet bungalow, construction of new first floor under raised roof with front, side and rear two storey extensions and rear single storey extension and alteration to front drive’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development would therefore have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would accord with the requirements of policies EN4 of the Mole Valley Local Plan (2024) and BKEN2 of the Bookham Neighbourhood Development Plan (2015) for development to be of high-quality design, to make a positive contribution, complement and respect the character of the area, to respond to the prevailing pattern of development, to be of an appropriate scale, height, massing, proportion and form, and to use good quality materials that complement the existing palette of materials used within the local surroundings.
Paragraph 9 · Source pages 2, 3
30 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of two outbuildings and erection of a single storey garage with subterranean car and plant storage space.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The land is currently laid out as garden with domestic landscaping features. The site, although within the countryside, has a domestic character and appearance with existing ancillary outbuildings, driveways and a pond. There are also residential properties to its north and south. The above ground single storey garage building would be of modest size and would replace two of the existing outbuildings that are of themselves of modest size. The overall extent of above-ground development across the site would be reduced in number and footprint. Much of the structure would be underground thereby reducing the level of built form above ground. As such, this would not spread visible built form across the site.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
19 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of 1.83m fence to front garden.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Policy EN4 of the Mole Valey Local Plan (2024) requires all new development to be of high-quality design that makes a positive contribution to its local character. Policy AS-En3 of the Ashtead Neighbourhood Development Plan (2016) requires all development to be visually integrated with their surroundings and designed with regard to the character of the surrounding area. For the reasons given I find that the proposed development would not satisfy these policies. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
24 January 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Planting of laurels and fencing along the side boundary of property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude on this main issue that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to Policy CS14 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy (2009) and Policies ENV22 and ENV23 of the Mole Valley Local Plan (2000). These policies, amongst other matters, require development to respect its setting and to respect and enhance the character of the area in which it is proposed.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2