Appeal 3277820
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
a hip to gable roof conversion with rear dormer, two- storey side and part rear extension. Single storey extension including a side annexe.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a detached two storey dwelling located within a predominantly residential area. Dwellings along [address] vary in design, however many have hipped or gable roofs. The area is characterised by detached and semi-detached dwellings set behind front gardens/parking areas. The host dwelling is a traditional design with a single projecting gable and bay windows under a hipped roof.
The existing dwelling is modest in scale and the proposal would considerably enlarge the dwelling. The introduction of a large flat roof dormer window to the rear, along with the creation of a flat roof element running across the entire width of the dwelling would appear discordant with the traditional character and appearance of the host dwelling. Additionally, the placement and proportions of the front gable and window are not reflective of the existing traditional windows, resulting in a dominant and discordant feature in the street scene.
Whilst reasonably localised in its extent, the effect of the scheme would be to unacceptably diminish the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Local Plan1 (2018) policy DM10 and the guidance contained within the [name] Guide2 (2019) which seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development is of a high quality design, subservient to the host building The proposed development would also be contrary to policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 which seeks high quality design and paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure developments are visually attractive and sympathetic to local character.
Section 05
Other Matters
The existing house is too small for the appellant and their extended family, which includes caring for a relative. [name] have given the appellant’s personal circumstances careful consideration, I am mindful of the advice contained in Planning Practice Guidance3 that in general planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. It is also probable that the proposed development would remain long after the current personal circumstances cease to be relevant. For these reasons, I therefore find that this factor is not sufficient to outweigh the harm identified.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore 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 568No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 23 December 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 29 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3277820
- Application reference
- 21/01407/HSE
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Croydon
- Planning authority code
- E09000008
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
- 153 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 25 June 2021
- Valid date
- 25 June 2021
- Start date
- 16 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 May 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 23 December 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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 8164
- 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