Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

Appeal 3279104

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 works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

5 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 in the application form as a “ground floor rear extension”.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a “ground floor rear extension”, at number [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application (reference 21/0751/HD, dated 27 February 2021), subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule of Conditions.

  2. Section 03

    Main issues

    The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    The appeal site lies within a relatively densely developed and predominantly residential part of Eltham. Greenvale road itself has terraces of houses along both frontages, with shallow front gardens that are frequently used for car parking. This creates a closely built up streetscene, although the back garden areas are relatively deep by modern standards.

    Number [site address] is a mid-terrace house, located on the north side of the road, with a good garden. At the rear of the property, there is a modest outshot, containing a small shower room and kitchen, but at the time of the site visit, the building was being refurbished and a conservatory that is shown on the submitted plans has been cleared away. The space that has been created is thus located between the older outshot on the appeal site and rear extensions to properties on either side. Appeal Decision: APP/E5330/D/21/3279104

    It is now proposed to construct a rear extension at the appeal site that would incorporate the area of the existing outshot but extending beyond it into the back garden.

    The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ (which was revised in July 2021) emphasises the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. It is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, which includes protecting existing residential amenities and providing good standards of accommodation.

    ‘The London Plan’ (dated March 2021) likewise seeks to encourage high standards of design, notably at Policies D3 and D4, which also focus on making the best use of urban land.

    Policies in the ‘Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (July 2014) also lay a specific emphasis on the need for good design. Policy DH1 deals with design considerations in broad terms and Policy DH(a) is specifically concerned with residential extensions, although it includes broad criteria rather than detailed dimensional rules.

    The ‘Royal Borough of Greenwich Supplementary Planning Document Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Guidance’ (dated December 2018) does contain more detailed criteria for rear extensions but such guidance does not carry the same weight as Policies in the Development Plan and is not to be treated as a rigid set of rules.

    The style and detailing of the proposed extension would not be discordant in relation to the existing building and, although an additional volume would be created, it would not be overly dominant or incongruous in relation to the host building. Nor would the single storey extension have a significant visual impact on its surroundings, either as viewed from nearby gardens or from the wider surroundings.

    It is also noted that the proposed extension would not cause undue harm to the residential amenities of close neighbours, bearing in mind the existing layout at the rear of these properties, even though it would extend beyond the line of existing rear extensions. 12 Evidently, the appeal site lies within an established urban area, which is “sustainable” in planning terms, and the proposed extension would be a useful addition to the accommodation at number [site address] . I have concluded that the project would not materially harm the character or appearance of the host building or its surroundings and that it would not conflict with the Development Plan.

    In short, I am persuaded that the scheme before me can properly be permitted and, although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision.

    I have, however, also considered the need for conditions and, in imposing conditions, I have taken account of the conditions suggested by the Council in the usual way (without prejudice to their main arguments in the appeal). I 2 Appeal Decision: APP/E5330/D/21/3279104 have concluded that conditions are necessary, to define the planning permission and to ensure that quality is maintained.

  4. Section 05

    SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS

    The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: unnumbered drawing ([name] and [name]); drawing number 2 ([name]); drawing number 3 (Conceptual Ground Floor Plan); drawing number 4 (Proposed Section in Part and [name]); drawing number 5 (Proposed Section); drawing number 6 ([name] of [name]); drawing number 7 (Proposed Ground Floor Plan, Elevations and Profiles); drawing number 8 (Site Location Plan); drawing number 9 (Block/Site Plan); drawing number 10 ([name]).

    The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4

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 285No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    28 January 2022Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    10 December 2021 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3279104
Application reference
21/0751/HD
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Royal Borough of Greenwich
Planning authority code
E09000011

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
Not recorded
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
16 July 2021
Valid date
16 July 2021
Start date
14 September 2021
Planning authority decision date
26 April 2021
Appeal decision date
28 January 2022

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
9573
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