Surrey Heath Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Surrey Heath?
Learn which visible changes inspectors criticised and how the allowed extension was judged.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 80 of 108
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 28
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 50
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 77
- of 80 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: Surrey Heath LPA (51.342928, −0.670505). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Surrey Heath Borough Council appeal findings
Surrey Heath: side gaps, boundary walls and junction views
The selected examples are more dismissal-heavy than the matched local set, so the lone allowed comparison is limited.
Counted against appeals
Side gaps, walls and visible height
Side space was lost
A high, wide side extension reduced side space and disrupted the spacious, verdant pattern of detached homes on generous plots.
A wall looked visually imposing
The boundary treatment was visually imposing and significantly harmful to the area’s character and appearance.
Height showed near a junction
Opposite a junction, trees did not conceal the extension’s height. The Inspector concluded it harmed the area.
Helped or needed
A design not overly bulky
No overly bulky design
The allowed extension was not overly bulky and was in keeping with the general street scene.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the notice call a boundary wall visually imposing?
- Does the notice say an addition is too tall, wide or bulky?
- Would it remove side space or remain visible near a junction?
Appeal 68829 supplies only the Inspector’s conclusion, not the preceding analysis. 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
30 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for the conversion of garage into habitable room, first floor side extension over garage, two storey front side extension, enclosure of existing porch with new roof and extend driveway.
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 2
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, on balance I consider that the scheme would not result in an overly bulky design and it would be in keeping with the general street scene. I find that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the area and that the proposal complies with Policy DM9 of the [name] and Development Management Policies and Policy DH1 of the emerging Local Plan, in addition to Policy WNP2.1 of the Windlesham Neighbourhood Plan which together permit development where it respects and enhances local character, paying particular regard to, amongst other things, scale, massing and bulk, supporting extensions where they respond positively to and protect the built and natural character features of their setting.
Paragraph 8 · Source pages 2, 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
1 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘proposed studio for use by the main house’.
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
For the above reasons I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policy DM9 of the [name] and Development Management Policies 2012 and Policy DH1 of the emerging Local Plan 2019-2038. Together, and amongst other things, these policies seek high quality design and for development to respect and enhance the local, natural or historic character of the environment, paying particular regard to scale, materials, massing, bulk and density. It would also be contrary to the guidance set out in the Western Urban Area Character SPD and the [name].
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
3 June 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for the replacement boundary hedge with wall (maximum height of 2.4 metres) with brick pillars and panels infill.
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
In conclusion, I find that the proposed boundary treatment would be a visually imposing feature and would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. Thus, the development would conflict with Policy DM9 of the [name] and [name] 2012 (the [name]), [name] - Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and the WUACA. Together these require high-quality design, that development respects and enhances the local environment and does not erode the existing positive character of the Character Area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
7 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Construction of 2 storey side extension, pool house and car port’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the appeal property and wider area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Nevertheless, by reason of the side extension’s height, width and overall scale and bulk, the proposal as a whole would result in a loss of space to the side of the dwelling. As a result, it would fail to maintain the spacious and verdant qualities of the site and wider area. This would be contrary to the prevailing development pattern of detached homes in generous plots with large side gardens, and harmful to the area’s distinctive character and appearance. The proposal would represent a type of residential development guiding principles WH1 and WH2 of the [name], along with the similar guiding principles 10.1 and 10.3 of the Council’s Residential Design Guide SPD, adopted in 2017, all advise against. Consequently, the proposal would not display the quality of design that Policy DM9 of the [name] & Development Management Policies 2011-2028, adopted in February 2012, requires in order for it to respect or enhance the local and natural character of the environment. For the same reasons there would be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s objectives for achieving well designed places.
Paragraph 9 · Source pages 2, 3
24 March 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 proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The position of the appeal building opposite a junction would exacerbate the obviousness of these matters. There are some trees which would provide some screening but not such that would conceal the height of the extension. With this and the above in mind, the extension would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 1