Appeal 3292862
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
9 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 as: ‘Roof alterations to create more usable spaces in loft. Change from hipped roof to gable end roof with x3 front dormers’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for roof alterations to create more usable space in loft. Change from hipped roof to gable end roof with x3 front dormers at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/4036/HOT, dated 24 November 2021 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out in Schedule 1 below:
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
Preliminary Matters
Plan 21182-AD-04 A was submitted with the appeal, whereas the Council’s decision letter states that the decision was based upon plan reference 21182- AD-04. I have written to the parties for clarification and the Council has confirmed that the decision was made using drawing reference 21182-AD-04 A. I have therefore considered the appeal on that basis.
Section 05
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the area.
Section 06
Reasons for the Recommendation
The appeal property is one of a pair of semi-detached houses on [address]. The subject pair are constructed in face brick, with hipped roofs covered with slate tiles. Both properties have large rear dormers with flat roofs and slate tile hung cladding. The appeal property also has front and side dormers.
The immediate vicinity of [address] presents a majority of properties as pairs of semi-detached houses, with many examples of hip to gable roof extensions, side, and rear dormers. There is one example of a bungalow with front dormers in the immediate street scene but no other front dormers on two-storey properties in the immediate vicinity.
The existing three individual dormer extensions are positioned on three separate elevations of the roof slope, a feature which creates a disjointed and unbalanced appearance out of keeping with the surrounding area. It is clear in the [address] Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that front roof extensions should be avoided; however, in this instance the front dormer already exists, and it is not disputed that it is now lawful.
The proposed front dormer would be large and dominant in the front roof slope, and would appear out of place in the street scene where there are no other similar front dormers. However, it does attempt to reflect the main design feature of the existing front gable and incorporate this into the front dormer roof design. It would therefore have a better relationship with the front gable than the existing dormer.
Viewed as a whole, the proposed hip to gable enlargement, combined with the other roof extensions, would rationalise the roofscape compared to the existing front, rear and side dormers. Although the formation of a gable end would not be symmetrical with the hipped roof of the attached dwelling, this is not uncommon in pairs of dwellings locally, and the proposal in its entirety would provide some balance to the roof, compared to the existing situation.
On balance therefore, taking all the above into consideration, whilst the proposed development would conflict with some guidance in the SPD, overall it would enhance the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the area. The proposal is therefore consistent with Policy LP1 of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan (2018) which requires development to respect, contribute to and enhance the local environment and character. Furthermore, it would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) requirement that development add to the overall quality of the area.
Section 07
Conditions
In addition to the standard time period for commencement of the development, I have attached a condition requiring the development to accord with the approved plans, to provide certainty and precision. A condition requiring the use of materials matching the existing building is necessary to ensure an appropriate appearance for the development. A condition requiring the development to accord with the provisions of the [name] received by the Council dated 30 November 2021 is necessary to ensure that the development incorporates the necessary fire safety measures in accordance with the Mayor's London Plan Policy D12. Lastly, a condition requiring site vehicles and equipment to be run on ultra-low sulphur diesel is necessary to protect air quality and as such, the living conditions of occupants and neighbours.
Section 08
Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions set out above.
Section 09
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and agree with the recommendation. On that basis the appeal is allowed subject to conditions.
The development hereby permitted shall begin no 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:21182-AD-00; 21182-AD-01; 21182- AD-04 A; 21182-AD-OS; 21182-AD-05 B.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the proposed development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
The development must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the [name] received by the Council dated 30 November 2021 unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
During onsite construction of any phase of development, all non-road transportable industrial equipment or vehicles which are fitted with an internal diesel powered compression ignition engine between 37 and 560KW and not intended for transporting goods or passengers on roads are required to meet [name] of [name] 97/68/E and be NRMM registered. Such vehicles must be run on ultra-low sulphur diesel (also known as ULSD 'cleaner diesel' or 'green diesel'). "Ultra-low sulphur diesel" means fuel meeting the specification within [name] 590. Where these standards are succeeded, they should be applied when reasonable. Exemptions to these standards may be granted for specialist equipment or for equipment with alternative emission reduction equipment or run on alternative fuels. Such exemptions shall be applied for in writing to the local planning authority in advance of the use of such vehicles, detailing the reasons for the exemption being sought and clearly identifying the subject vehicles. Exemptions that are granted will be in writing and such vehicles must not be used until written exemption has been issued by the local planning authority. No vehicles or plant to which the above emission standards apply shall be on site, at any time, whether in use or not, unless it complies with the above standards, without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.
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 133No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 11 May 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 April 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3292862
- Application reference
- 21/4036/HOT
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E09000027
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
- 15 February 2022
- Valid date
- 15 February 2022
- Start date
- 7 March 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 12 January 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 11 May 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
- 15036
- 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