Runnymede Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Runnymede?
See the local design features inspectors criticised and the fence condition applied in the allowed appeal.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 20 of 45
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 18
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 19
- of 20 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: Runnymede LPA (51.393796, −0.54131). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Runnymede Borough Council appeal findings
Runnymede roof additions and boundary fences
The selected examples are less dismissal-heavy than the matched local set. The allowed fence extract records only the condition.
Counted against appeals
Bulky roofs and a harmful fence
Altered forms felt discordant
Combined roof changes, extra massing, boundary proximity and a glazed front projection were found discordant with the dwelling and neighbouring properties.
Roof additions appeared overgrown
A raised ridge was called prominent and incongruous. A large flat-roofed rear addition was said to resemble a third floor.
Fence harm was not explained
The inspector concluded that the fence harmed the area's character and appearance, but the displayed extract gives no further reasoning.
Helped or needed
Condition on the allowed fence
Lower height and approved design
The inspector imposed a condition to lower the installed fence to the approved height and design, to protect the local area's character and appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify roof height, bulk, or a change to roof form?
- Is a boundary fence said to harm the area's character without explaining why?
- Could a smaller, lower or differently shaped element address the stated design harm?
Appeal 22127 records a condition, while 34282 gives only its conclusion. 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
18 October 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
to remove the existing boundary fencing and low level wall to the side boundary of the host address and replace it with new modern 1.8 metre high decorative fencing panels and posts.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed fence on the character and appearance of this part of [address].
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
As the fence has already been installed, the standard condition requiring a start within 3 years is not necessary. I impose a condition specifying the relevant plans to provide certainty. I also include a condition requiring the structure to be lowered to the height and design shown on the approved plans within a specified time frame, to protect the character and appearance of the local area.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
18 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taken together, the altered roof form, increased massing, proximity to the boundary, and glazed front projection result in a scheme that fails to respect the architectural character of the host dwelling and appears discordant in relation to neighbouring properties. The development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
20 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘retrospective boundary works and planting scheme.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In light of the foregoing, I conclude that the fence is harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The development conflicts with Policy EE1 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan (2020), which requires development to make a positive contribution to the Borough’s townscape and respond to the local context.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
4 May 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for loft conversion to rear section only with two dormers to the side elevations and fenestration changes to elevations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore consider that by reason of its overall form and scale, the increased ridge height of the roof extension would result in a visually prominent and incongruous development that would constitute an alien feature within the street scene. Consequently, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, and in addition to being contrary to paragraph 130 of the Framework it also conflicts with Policy EE1 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan which requires all development proposals to achieve high quality design which responds to the local context.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
6 February 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a 3m back extension as well as a dormer loft extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development includes the erection of a rear roof extension with a flat roof. This element of the appeal scheme would be set down below the property’s ridge but would substantially extend across the rear roof slope and the outrigger. The proposed extension would be significantly larger than the rear roof addition at No. 52. By reason of its siting, size and roof form, this proposed extension would be an incongruous, bulky and visually conspicuous addition to the host property which would have the appearance of a third floor being added. Further, the design of the extension would not reflect the characteristics of this property, the terrace and the wider character and appearance of the surrounding dwellings within this part residential of the Conservation Area. Accordingly, the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would not be preserved as demonstrated by other similarly large nearby roof additions.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2