Spelthorne Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Spelthorne?
See how selected Spelthorne examples judged extension design and which house-scale details avoided harm.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 51 of 70
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 16
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 34
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 46
- of 51 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: Spelthorne LPA (51.424808, −0.467983). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Spelthorne Borough Council appeal findings
Extension form and Spelthorne street character
Some selected dismissed extracts state only the harm conclusion, not the design detail behind it.
Counted against appeals
Why extension forms were harmful
Catslide roof and front dormer
The inspector concluded that the catslide roof and dormer would harm the character and appearance of the area.
Front extension still found harmful
The inspector concluded that this front extension significantly harmed the area’s character and appearance despite no neighbour objections.
Helped or needed
Rear additions that stayed subordinate
Additions kept subordinate
A hipped roof and second-floor rear extension were accepted because both would remain subordinate to the main house.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal notice identify a roof, dormer or extension form as harmful?
- Would each new element remain subordinate to the main house?
- Does your refusal notice say the scheme creates a terracing effect?
The source extracts do not show every feature considered in the dismissed extension schemes. 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
2 examples
15 December 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a 3M extension at ground level and changes to the existing West gable elevation. The construction of a study at the rear, the replacement of the existing garage roof, and the construction of a glazed covered walkway linking the study with the kitchen doorway.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal also includes other alterations, but the Council found no harm in relation to these matters. Based on the evidence before me, I have no reason to disagree. Therefore, for the reasons identified above, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore comply with Policy EN1 of the [name] and Policies Development Plan Document (2009) which seeks amongst other things, development of a high standard in the design and layout of new development.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
22 September 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of a single storey rear extension, two storey side extension and conversion of existing garage into a habitable room.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I understand the proposed rear ground floor extension was permitted under a previous planning application. The proposal also includes adding a hipped roof to the existing 2 storey projecting rear wing and a second floor rear extension projecting back from the side extension. Both these elements would be subordinate to the main house and would cause no harm to the character or appearance of the house or wider area. I therefore consider that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area and there would be no conflict with Policy EN1 of the Council's Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (2009) which requires development to respect and contribute positively to the street scene, or with the aims of the SPD which seeks to avoid development creating a terracing effect.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
23 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
an extension to the front of the property with an additional single storey over the garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[name] note that there were no objections from neighbours, as it would significantly harm the character and appearance of the area, the scheme would conflict with the development plan and the SPD. Having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is therefore dismissed.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
18 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of a single storey front extension, a front dormer and conversion of
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
For the reasons above, I conclude that the catslide roof and dormer would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the aims of Policy EN1 of the [name] and Policies Development Plan Document (2009) which seeks to ensure that buildings respect and make a positive contribution to the street scene and the character of the area and I also find conflict with the SPD those aims which are set out above.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
19 July 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as, “Erection of a part single storey, part two storey side and rear extension, and subdivision of the plot to create an additional one bedroom dwelling”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all of the above into account, I therefore find that the proposal would have an unacceptable and significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would conflict with Policy EN1 of the [name] and Policies Development Plan Document (adopted 2009) ([name]), which provides that, amongst other things, proposals for new development should respect and make a positive contribution to the street scene and the character of the area in which they are situated. It would also conflict with paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 4