Tandridge District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Tandridge?
Learn how cited Tandridge examples describe character harm and where the allowed evidence is limited.
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 117
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 26
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 47
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 68
- 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: Tandridge LPA (51.227075, −0.043374). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Tandridge District Council appeal findings
Tandridge extensions and enlarged homes: character-and-appearance harm
The selected examples give thin allowed evidence: the garage has only a no-harm conclusion, and the apartment extract only describes the scheme.
Counted against appeals
Dismissed extensions and enlarged homes
Extensions judged harmful
The front first-floor extension and the extension across several levels were each concluded to harm the area’s character and appearance.
Local pattern outweighed acceptable details
The outbuilding and enlarged dwelling were visually discordant and at odds with the development pattern. Acceptable render and a car port that did not appear cramped did not remove the harm.
Helped or needed
Allowed Tandridge character-and-appearance examples
Garage found not harmful
The inspector concluded that the proposed garage would not harm the area’s character and appearance.
Apartment extract gives scheme details
The selected extract describes a replacement apartment building, front car park and shared gardens. It gives no character-and-appearance conclusion.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify conflict with the local development pattern?
- Are materials or a car port accepted but the overall form still harmful?
- What exact character-and-appearance harm would further evidence need to address?
The selected Tandridge apartment extract does not state the character-and-appearance 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
2 examples
23 September 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
proposed new garage.
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 proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore accord with the objectives of Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy (Adopted 15 October 2008) and Policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part2: [name] 2014-2029 ([name] 2014) as they require new development to, amongst other things, respect the character of the area.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
3 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolition of the existing dwelling on site and development of nine apartments with associated access, parking and landscaping.
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
The proposal would demolish the house and replace it with a two-and-a-half storey building containing nine apartments with a car park to the front and shared garden to the sides and rear, the latter extending into the scrubland. The existing dropped kerb would be replaced with a radiused access to the car park. The footprint of the replacement building would be just over two-and-a-half times, and its volume would be just under three times, those of the existing.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
20 December 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
front first floor extension over existing ground floor study and porch.
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 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
11 November 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as “An additional floor to create a two-storey dwelling with front gable end, side extension to include side dormer, front porch, fenestration changes, part single, part two storey rear extension to include balcony and detached car port”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect on the character and appearance of the locality.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In these circumstances the outbuilding and enlarged dwelling would appear visually discordant, comprising unsympathetic development that fails to reflect or respect local character. They would be unacceptably at odds with the pattern of development. It is therefore concluded that the development would harm the character and appearance of the locality. It is acknowledged that the existing dwelling is of no particular architectural merit and that the use of render would be acceptable given that it is found nearby on other properties. The car port would not appear cramped or take amenity space associated with the host dwelling. Nevertheless, the harm that I have found would occur despite matters such as these.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
12 June 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
new extension at ground, first and loft levels, new car parking and drive arrangement.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would be contrary to Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008, Policy DP7 of the (LP) and Policies CCW4 and CCW5 of the Caterham, Chaldon and Whyteleafe Neighbourhood Plan 2018 to 2033 (2021). Together these seek high quality design that reflects the character setting and local context, amongst other things.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2