Appeal 3272115
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
8 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
roof terrace with associated screening.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a roof terrace at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 20/04434/FUL, dated 21 December 2020 and subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: the location plan and drawing numbers 02, 04, 05 and 06.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure
The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons for the Recommendation
The appeal site is part of a terrace group that has a relatively harmonious roof form, although the appeal property itself has a flat roof on the rear projection.
The proposal would convert a portion of the flat roofed section of the building into a roof terrace with a glass balustrade. A previous proposal and subsequent appeal1 on this site sought to utilise a roof terrace that covered the full flat roof area and had tall glass screening. The proposal being considered in this appeal 1 APP/N5660/W/16/3164301 would be set in from the eaves, smaller in size and have a lower glass balustrade than the previous proposal. The reduced size and scale of the proposed development ensures it would not be unsympathetic and would remain subordinate to the host dwelling, even when combined with the previous addition to the property.
The existing flat roof on the rear projection has parapets, and this proposal does not seek to install an enclosing wall taller than these and would therefore not appear overly bulky. These parapets would also significantly reduce the visibility of the glass balustrades, despite the roof terrace being slightly higher than other roof terraces nearby. It would not be visible from the public realm, and although it would be seen from properties in the vicinity, this would only be to a limited extent, so the proposal would not appear visually prominent.
Although other buildings in the immediacy of the appeal site have a relatively harmonious roof form, the host dwelling has a rear projection that has a flat roof with parapet. Therefore, the proposed terrace would not interrupt the locally distinctive roof form, due to its small overall size and the existing flat roof on the host dwelling. There are also other, similar sized roof terraces with glass balustrades in the immediate vicinity of the appeal property, and this means the proposal would not appear incongruous or out of character with the area.
Overall, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. It would therefore be in accord with Policy Q5 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015), which together aim to protect local distinctiveness, with regard to built form, including at roof level. It would also conform with the Building Alterations & Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2015), which aims to ensure roof terraces do not harm locally distinctive roof forms.
Section 06
Conditions
In addition to the standard time period for commencement of the development, I have suggested a condition ensuring the development accords with the approved plans for reasons of certainty and precision, to ensure the development has an acceptable design.
The glazed panels would not be tall enough to prevent overlooking when stood on the balcony and, in any case, it is not considered that the balcony would cause undue overlooking to the neighbouring property. Therefore, the condition requested by the Council regarding obscure glazing is not considered necessary.
Section 07
Conclusion and Recommendation
The proposal would accord with the Development Plan when it is considered as a whole. For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.
Section 08
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.
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 859No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 23 July 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 6 July 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3272115
- Application reference
- 20/04434/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Lambeth
- Planning authority code
- E09000022
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
- 9 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 29 March 2021
- Valid date
- 29 March 2021
- Start date
- 19 May 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 2 March 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 23 July 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
- 1105
- 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