Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3286541

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

4 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 single storey rear extension at ground floor, a side extension at first floor over existing at ground floor and a hip to gable roof and ridge extension over proposed at first floor with a rear roof dormer and front roof fold-out balcony rooflights.

  1. Section 02

    Decisions

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension at ground floor, a side extension at first floor over existing at ground floor and a hip to gable roof and ridge extension over proposed at first floor with a rear roof dormer and front roof fold-out balcony rooflights at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 21/P2525, dated 2 July 2021, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule. Appeal Decisions APP/T5720/D/21/3286540 and APP/T5720/D/21/3286541 Appeal B Ref: APP/T5720/D/21/3286541

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension at ground floor, a side extension at first floor over existing at ground floor and a hip to gable roof and ridge extension over proposed at first floor with front and rear roof dormers at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 21/P2526, dated 2 July 2021, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

  2. Section 03

    Main issue

    The main issue for both appeals is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and the local area.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    [site address] [site address] is an attractive and well detailed hipped roof semi-detached house sitting on a corner plot in an area of similar houses. The proposals for these 2 appeals share a number of key elements. Both include a first floor and roof extension (hip to gable and rear dormer) over an existing flat roofed, single storey side section, plus a flat roofed single storey rear extension. Both also include double height glazing on the new side gable wall.

    The key difference is that Appeal A includes a set of rooflights on the front elevation which would fold out to provide a small balcony space within the line of the roof, while Appeal B includes a front dormer extension instead. I note that a third scheme has been granted planning permission by the Council, with a smaller hip to gable conversion but otherwise much the same extensions and alterations as are proposed in Appeal A.

    The Council’s concern is that the larger side extensions in both appeals and the front dormer in Appeal B would be incongruous and excessive development resulting in a loss of the building's form and imbalancing the pair of semis. I saw at my site visit that many houses within the local area have hip to gable extensions. Although this means that many of these other pairs of semi-detached houses are no longer symmetrical, this is not a crucial part of their character and this pattern of development is now well established locally.

    I note also a similar side extension to another corner house not far away at 391 [site address] , which was allowed on appeal1. This has been constructed and fits in well in the street scene. I recognise that No [address] house instead of a semi and that there are other differences in the 2 developments, but the similarities are sufficient for me to take note of that extension in assessing these appeals. In particular, in both cases the extension has/would have a limited and proportionate width in comparison to the house.

    The proposed side extension would be in a prominent position on this corner, extending up to the back of the footway. The proposed double height glazing would form an interesting design feature here, helping to break up the massing of the new gable. The extensions would be well-detailed to reflect the character of the existing house, with contemporary touches, and would not be overly bulky or imposing. 1 APP/T5720/D/19/3226602 Appeal Decisions APP/T5720/D/21/3286540 and APP/T5720/D/21/3286541

    The other half of this pair of semis has a front dormer window. The proposed front dormer in Appeal B would be in character and scale with that dormer and others on nearby houses. It would be appropriate in this context.

    I conclude that both of the appeal proposals would harmonise with the existing building and would not harm the character or appearance of the local area. They accord with the aims of London Plan Policies D3 and D4, Core Planning Strategy Policy CS14 and Sites and Policies Plan Policies DMD2 and DMD3, to ensure that development is of a high quality that respects, reinforces and enhances local character, with extensions complementing both the building and the wider setting.

    The same set of conditions is necessary for both applications. Conditions specifying the relevant plans are needed to provide certainty and conditions requiring the use of materials as proposed are needed to protect local character and appearance. Conditions restricting the use of the roof of the rear extension are also necessary in order to protect neighbours’ privacy.

    For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that both of these appeals should succeed.

    The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: ARC 2002 B-02 [name]; ARC 2002 B-03 [name]; ARC 2002 B-04 [name]; ARC 2002 B-05 [name].

    The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions hereby permitted shall be as specified on the application form and approved plans.

    Access to the flat roof of the development hereby permitted shall be for maintenance or emergency purposes only, and the flat roof shall not be used as a roof garden, terrace, patio or similar amenity area. SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS: APPEAL B (APP/T5720/D/21/3286541)

    The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: ARC 2002 A-02 [name]; ARC 2002 A-03 [name]; ARC 2002 A-04 [name]; ARC 2002 A-05 [name].

    The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions hereby permitted shall be as specified on the application form and approved plans.

    Access to the flat roof of the development hereby permitted shall be for maintenance or emergency purposes only, and the flat roof shall not be used as a roof garden, terrace, patio or similar amenity area.

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 890No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    31 March 2022Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    7 March 2022 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3286541
Application reference
21/P2526
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
London Borough of Merton
Planning authority code
E09000024

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
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
9 November 2021
Valid date
9 November 2021
Start date
1 December 2021
Planning authority decision date
27 August 2021
Appeal decision date
31 March 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
13274
First seen
20 August 2026 at 14:24
Last seen
20 August 2026 at 16:26
Removed from release
Not recorded
Record created
20 August 2026 at 14:24
Record updated
24 August 2026 at 16:21