Appeal 3303716
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
7 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 rear extension and rear outrigger roof extension. Rooflights to front elevation.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension and rear outrigger roof extension and rooflights to front elevation at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/0592/HOT, dated 28 January 2022 and the plans submitted with it, subject to conditions set out in the Appendix.
Section 03
Application for costs
An application for costs was made by [name] against the Council of the London Borough of [name]. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Section 04
Preliminary Matters
During the determination of the application, the description of development was changed. I have used the description of development shown on the decision notice as this includes the relevant parts of the proposal which would require planning permission.
Section 05
Reasons
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposals on the character and appearance of the area.
[address] is a residential street characterised by attractive terraced Victorian dwellings with varied external appearances which cumulatively provide a pleasant character and richness to the street scene.
The appeal property, No102 has been subject to some extensions to the rear, including a contemporary glazed garden room and box dormer within the main part of the roof. Neighbouring properties have also been subject to a number of rear extensions, loft conversions and additions, including dormer extensions.
The principal elevation of the appeal property shares uniformity with the rest of the terrace, but because of the multiple extensions and alterations along the terrace, this is not the case for the rear elevations. At the site visit, I also noticed that there were a number of dwellings within the terrace with rooflights on the principal elevation.
There is a substantial dormer extension, as well as a glazed lean-to and single storey extension to the outrigger serving the adjacent neighbour No [address], which, at the site visit, was clearly visible from the rear garden of No102.
Policy LP1 (Local Character and [name]) of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan (2018) (LP) requires that development proposals take opportunities to improve the quality and character of buildings, spaces, and the local area.
[address] Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2015) (SPD) provides guidance for extensions and alterations for householders. It sets out how new development should integrate into its surroundings in order to positively contribute to character and appearance. It specifically provides guidance for the extension and alteration of terraced dwellings where it is noted that the maintenance of ‘visual continuity’ is considered important.
The appeal proposals would result in the enclosure of a small area of courtyard between the dining room and kitchen on the ground floor, which would be similar in scale to a glazed lean to at No140. Beyond this would be the addition of the second-floor box dormer extension above the existing two storey outrigger. [name] have already identified, there are rooflights to the principal elevations of a number of properties within the terrace.
I do not consider the appeal proposals would undermine the continuity of the character of the area, nor do I feel that the proposals would be incongruous when viewed next to neighbouring properties with similar extensions/fenestration.
In light of the extensions already made to neighbouring properties and the relatively small scale of the proposed additions, it is my view that the appeal proposals would not harm the character and appearance of the area. I therefore do not find offence to policy LP1 nor the relevant parts of the SPD.
Section 06
Conditions
I have applied conditions 1 and 2 as suggested by the council, in the interests of precision and to define the plans with which the scheme should accord.
Condition 3 has been applied in order to protect the character and appearance of the area. Condition 4 has been applied in order to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and the area more generally.
Condition 5 has been applied in order to ensure necessary fire safety measures are in place, in accordance with the Mayor's London Plan Policy D12.
Section 07
Conclusions
For the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed, subject to the conditions set out above.
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 01 [name], 03 [name]; received 20 April 2022 02 [name]; received 05 May 2022.
No new external finishes (including fenestration), including works of making good, shall be carried out other than in materials to match the existing.
The roof of the building shall not be used for any purpose other than as a means of escape in emergency or for maintenance of the building.
The development must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the [name], received on 23 February 2022; unless otherwise approved in writing by 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.
Costs Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 2526No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 4 October 2022 (page 1)
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 2526No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 4 October 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3303716
- Application reference
- 22/0592/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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 22 July 2022
- Valid date
- 22 July 2022
- Start date
- 19 August 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 28 June 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 27 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
- Yes
- 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
- 22630
- 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