Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3299509

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

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

described in the application form as “extension over existing garage and external alterations”.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an extension over an existing garage, and external alterations, at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application (reference 21/04695/HSE, dated 12 September 2021), subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule of Conditions.

  2. Section 03

    Main issue

    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 is located within an extensive area of residential suburbs, to the west of the centre of Purley. The A237 runs through the area but [address] is a quiet residential road, set with large, detached houses. The houses exhibit a considerable mixture of architectural styles, including some examples with classical features, some traditional English designs (with an “Arts and Crafts” approach) and some more contemporary architecture. The house at number [site address] has some overtly “Tudor”, elements, with false timbering and “leaded lights”, for example. The houses are generally set back from the road, on large plots, among mature trees and shrubs, with trees in the verges of the road as well as in individual gardens.

    Number [site address] has a wide principal elevation, with a prominent gabled element at the front. This has a two-storey element on its east side Appeal Decision: APP/L5240/D/22/3299509 and another section with a lower ridge (and one-storey eaves) to the east of that. To the west of the main gable, there is a double garage that is separated from the main house by a passageway, although this is located behind a screen wall that connects the front elevation so that it extends across the site. The garage is a single-storey building with a roof that is almost flat, although it has a small pitched roof at the front, above the garage door.

    It is now proposed that a first-floor extension should be built above the existing garage, together with some associated alterations.

    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, by development adding to the overall quality of the area and being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history, although it is also recognised that appropriate change may include increased densities.

    Policies in the Development Plan reflect these basic concerns. In particular, Policy D3 of ‘The London Plan’ (dated March 2021) promotes a “design-led approach” to development, while Policies SP4 and DM10 of the ‘Croydon Local Plan 2018’ focus on “urban design and local character” and “design and character”, respectively.

    The Council’s ‘Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document’ (dated 2018) is also relevant but it does not have the force of the statutory

  4. Section 05

    Development Plan.

    The main element of the proposals would be the construction of a separate space above the garage, providing a “home office”, together with a separate “rest room” and shower. This new element would be set apart from the main body of the house and it would have a lower eaves height (and overall height). It would be finished in material to match the existing house, with plain roof tiles and white rendered external wall finishes, overlaid with treated timber boards as false timbering. The garden wall would continue to link the outbuilding to the main house, binding together the whole composition.

    The extension would be set back from the side boundary with number [address] by only a relatively small amount but, in this case, the overall effect would not be so out of keeping with the character of [address] as a whole that it would materially harm the character or appearance of the surroundings.

    The finished building would present a long elevation to the road but this elevation would be visually fragmented, with a variety of eaves and ridge levels, hips and gables that would combine together to provide an interesting design overall. The building is set behind a mature front garden and existing landscaping would act as a foil to the built development.

    Buildings in the vicinity are very mixed in character, although they can take up most of the width of their plots, and the juxtaposition of different styles is not especially uncomfortable in its context. I am convinced that the appeal scheme would be in harmony with the host building and that it would not be out of keeping with the streetscene or visually harmful to the surroundings. 2 Appeal Decision: APP/L5240/D/22/3299509

    Evidently, the appeal site lies within an established urban area, which is “sustainable” in planning terms, and the proposed extension would be a modest but useful addition to the accommodation at number [site address] . I have concluded that the project would not be in conflict with national or local planning policies (including the Development Plan) and that it is acceptable in planning terms.

    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), subject to modifications necessary, in my opinion, in the interests of clarity and enforceability. In particular, I have concluded that conditions are necessary, to define the planning permission and to ensure that quality is maintained.

  5. Section 06

    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: drawing number MH-8253 (Existing Site Plan); drawing number MH-8254 ([name]); drawing number MH-8255 ([name]); drawing number MH-8256 (3D Views); drawing number MH-8258 ([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
    23 August 2022Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    25 July 2022 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3299509
Application reference
21/04695/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
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
23 May 2022
Valid date
23 May 2022
Start date
10 June 2022
Planning authority decision date
4 March 2022
Appeal decision date
23 August 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
19733
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