Appeal 3301191
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
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
two storey side extensions, and front bay and porch addition.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey side extensions, and front bay and porch addition at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application 22/00368/HSE, dated 31 January 2022, subject to the following conditions:
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 plan: 070DWGP01A, 070DWGP02, 070DWGP03, 070DWGP04, 070DWGP05A, 070DWGP06A & 070DWGP07A.
Section 03
Main issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The property lies in a road where there are detached houses of varying design on large plots. Unlike most houses in the road the appeal property has a clear degree of symmetry in its design, giving a more formal appearance than other houses. The property also appears smaller in relation to its plot than other houses, with more spacing to the boundaries.
The proposed extensions would see demolition of existing single storey side extensions and the erection of a two storey extensions to the west of the house, and a two/single storey extension to the east of the house. There would also be a new two storey front gable and porch. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Amongst other matters, the Council's Suburban Design Guide 2019 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) sets out guidance for extensions to residential properties. Part 4.17 of the SPD states that two storey side extensions are appropriate where space is sufficient and the impacts on the townscape and neighbouring properties are considered. Detailed guidance is given, which includes that such extensions ‘do not result in an overly wide or poorly proportioned elevation facing the street’. The SPD then says ‘this can usually be avoided by setting the extension back from the front elevation’; the use of the word ‘usually’ indicates each case will be considered on its merits, rather than a setback being a requirement in every situation, and indeed the SPD refers to applications being considered on a case-by-case basis.
In this appeal there is no setback to the side elevations. This results in the house retaining a symmetrical appearance which, together with the existing ridge and eaves height being continued in the side extensions, creates a well-balanced house that sits comfortably on its site. The new front gable extension adds to this balanced design and creates a sense of articulation in the front elevation, hence ensuing the scale, width and form of the extended house is suitable for the area. The SPD states that two storey front extensions will be determined on a case-by-case basis and so, in this instance, I consider that part of the works to be acceptable.
Although the appeal scheme does not show a set-back in the side elevations or set-down in ridge height, as the Council’s Delegated Report evidently wishes to see, the particular circumstances of this case show to me that the extended house would remain of a suitable scale, form and design for the varied townscape character of [address]. The reduction in the spacing around the house would not impact upon that character, where I saw at my site visit that other houses generally fill their plot.
On the main issue I therefore conclude that the proposal satisfies the SPD and Policies DM10 and SP4.1 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018, the general thrust of which is to seek to ensure a high quality built environment and that new development is of a high standard of design appropriate to the local character of an area, and the design-led approach of Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021.
The appeal is therefore allowed. The application form and drawings set out the materials to be used in the proposed works and so, in addition to the standard time limiting condition, the sole condition I have attached specifies the approved plans both in the interest of precision and to secure the use of such materials to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.
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 97No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 21 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 26 September 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3301191
- Application reference
- 22/00368/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
- 45 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 June 2022
- Valid date
- 15 June 2022
- Start date
- 24 June 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 27 May 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 21 October 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
- 22326
- 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