Appeal 3268808
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
6 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
described as single storey rear extension replacing a rear balcony to habitable space.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
Since the Council determined the proposal, the revised National Planning Policy Framework has been published on 20 July 2021. Both main parties have been given the opportunity to comment and my decision is made in the context of the revised Framework.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Sloane Stanley Conservation Area.
Section 05
Reasons
The Sloane Stanley Conservation Area (CA) is characterised by rows of well-preserved Victorian terraced housing set out in a tightly knit grid pattern. The appeal property is a three storey, flat fronted mid-terraced house with a stucco ground floor and painted brickwork above. The roof formation of the terrace consists of a parapet to the front and a hipped butterfly roof form to the rear.
Like the remainder of the host terrace, the appeal property has a rear closet wing which reaches to the second floor and is finished with a modest roof terrace enclosed by metal railings. This is a common arrangement on both the host terrace and to the rear of [address] which lies directly opposite and it and is a feature that creates a sense of architectural rhythm and uniformity. Of particular relevance to this proposal is the way that the closet wings terminate well below the eaves line so as to appear subordinate to the main body of the terrace.
The proposal would see an additional storey of development constructed on top of the closet wing which according to the submitted drawings would terminate in line with the parapet wall.
[name] do accept that there are extremely limited, if any, public views into the proposed location of the extension I consider that by reason of its height the proposal would undermine the architectural harmony, rhythm and detailing of the appeal property and wider terrace thus failing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA. In this regard it would be contrary to the requirements of Policies CL1, CL2, CL3, CL6, CL9 and CL11 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
In the parlance of the Framework, the harm I have identified is less than substantial. However, any harm requires clear and convincing justification. The provision of additional living accommodation serving the appeal property does not amount to public benefits that would sufficiently outweigh the harm to the
Section 06
Conclusion
There are no material considerations that indicate the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 157No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 13 August 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 July 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3268808
- Application reference
- PP/20/06264
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
- Planning authority code
- E09000020
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 5 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- Yes
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 11 February 2021
- Valid date
- 11 February 2021
- Start date
- 23 April 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 December 2020
- Appeal decision date
- 13 August 2021
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 1786
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21