Appeal 3289816
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
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
single storey extension at [site address] .
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/03723/HSE, dated 12 July 2021, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name] and Elevations 01 (May 2021); [name] and Elevations 10 (July 2021); Proposed Site Plan and Location Plan 11 (July 2021).
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
Downsway is lined with large mature trees, which, together with planting in front gardens and soft front boundary treatments provides a very verdant character. It is made up predominantly of large detached and semi-detached 2- storey houses, each set back from the road a similar distance creating both a degree of uniformity and sense of spaciousness. The houses follow the sloping topography of the highway with some elevated slightly above the highway and others set slightly below.
The form of the houses varies, although they share common features, including bay style windows and porches. Most of the houses also have side extensions, often garages, or detached garages positioned to the side. Many of the extensions and outbuildings project a short distance forward of the principal elevation. This regular, although modest, front projection of features, extensions and outbuildings is a positive characteristic of the street that adds visual interest to the street scene.
The appeal property is located on one of the steepest sections of the highway, although is positioned level with it. Taking account of the topography, the existing detached single garage is set slightly above the host dwelling at a similar level to the neighbouring property. The front elevation of the garage is flush with the principal elevation of the house, although the bay windows and porch canopy that form part of the principal elevation project a short distance further forward.
The proposed extension would replace the existing garage. Although it would be slightly taller, the increase in height is small, and the pitched roof form to the front of the extension would be a positive addition that would be in keeping with the host dwelling and other extensions and outbuildings on the street. While it would protrude past the principal elevation, the protrusion wouldn’t be significantly greater than the existing bay windows and porch canopy. Given this, the proposal’s modest scale and that it would use materials to match the existing house, it would appear subservient to and respect the appearance of the host dwelling. Furthermore, the front projection is of a scale that would be characteristic of and in keeping with other extensions and outbuildings on the street.
For these reasons, the proposal would have regard to the appearance of the street, in line with paragraph 4.13 of the Council’s Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2019) ([name]). It would also accord with the detailed guidance regarding single storey front extensions at paragraph 4.14.1, which advises they should generally be no deeper than 1.5m and should avoid being full width; overly wide or deep.
Accordingly, in relation to the main issue, the proposal would respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. As such it would accord with policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and the [name] that seek to, amongst other things, ensure high quality development that respects and enhances local character.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, considering the development plan as a whole and all relevant material considerations, the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions above.
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 2938No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 23 September 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 August 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3289816
- Application reference
- 21/03723/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
- 21 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
- 24 December 2021
- Valid date
- 24 December 2021
- Start date
- 10 January 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 26 October 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 23 September 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
- 20944
- 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