Development Intent
Planning AtlasKingston Upon ThamesDM10
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Kingston Upon Thames · Local Plan · Policy

DM10 — Design Requirements for New Developments (including House Extensions)134.

How Kingston Upon Thames actually applies DM10: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

DM10 is a published Kingston Upon Thames planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.

Cited under: Kingston Upon Thames Local Plan (adopted)

Kingston Upon Thames · DM10
Where DM10 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~181
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
3,137
times cited
in parsed decision notices
76%
appeal survival
110 dismissed · 35 allowed at appeal
31 of 31
officer reach
100% of officers recorded in this period
Coombe Vale
top hotspot ward
181 citations
What it means in practice

Not filled in yet. This will hold how officers actually argue DM10 case by case, classified from their decision reports — the classification pass hasn't run. Nothing is paraphrased in its place.

What the published record shows

DM10 appears most often in Coombe Vale, Coombe Hill, New Malden Village. It appears across 31 of 31 officers recorded in this period. The map shows the pattern for the selected period.

Who cites it — case-officer spreadfrom parsed decision notices · click an officer
Who leans on this policy — and how often — is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Why it is cited — and what follows
73%
in approvals
2,280 citations
27%
in refusals
849 citations

This shows the decision reports in which DM10 appears. It does not yet claim that the policy caused those outcomes; 8 citations sit outside the approval/refusal split.

Reason · role · consequence

Not filled in yet — the classification pass over the citing passages hasn't run. When it has, this shows why DM10 was used, whether it supported approval or refusal, and what changed as a result. No conclusion is shown until that classification has been checked.

Why this policy is cited, and what follows, is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Does it hold up? — appeal performance
76% survival
110 dismissed · 35 allowed · 1 split146 PINS appeal decisions cite DM10

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite DM10. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing DM10 traced to their specific appeals — is still to come.

Related — follow the thread
Kingston Upon Thames
Back to the borough policy record
Open →
Committee record
What reaches members, and what they do with it
Open →
Case officers
Kingston Upon Thames's decision-makers
Open →
Citations, officer spread, ward and application-type counts parsed from published Kingston Upon Thames decision notices (high-confidence parses, approvals and refusals), joined to the canonical application record. One citation = one decision citing the policy. See the policy overview for every policy cited.

Atlas intelligence summarises patterns and observations from published planning records. Past decisions do not indicate how any future application will be determined. Every application is assessed on its own merits, having regard to the proposal, site, evidence and policies applying at the time. This information is provided for general information only and is not planning, legal, financial or professional advice.