Appeal 3309722
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
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
a roof extension with rear projecting dormer and rooflights to front roof slope to convert attic space into a habitable room.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a roof extension with rear projecting dormer and rooflights to front roof slope to convert attic space into a habitable room at [site address] , Thamesmead, Greenwich [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 22/2020/HD, dated 11 June 2022, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:
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: PL1.[name], PL.2 [name], PL.3 [name], PL.4 [name], PL.5 [name], PL.6 [name], PL.7 [name], PL.8 [name], PL.10 [name], PL.11 [name], PL.13 rev A and PL.14 [name]
The materials to be used in the construction of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
The window to the bathroom in the dormer extension hereby permitted shall at all times be glazed with obscured glass and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor shall be capable of being opened.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and that of the local area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal dwelling is a three storey terraced town house with a front garden with car parking space and a rear garden backing onto a pedestrian access lane. It is located on the edge of a planned housing development made up of similar traditionally designed terraced and semi-detached houses and faces towards Gallion’s Park, a green space with mature trees.
The Council have imposed a condition on the planning approval for the housing development of which the appeal property forms part, which restricts permitted development rights for extensions of the type proposed. However, notwithstanding that there may be a restriction to permitted development in place, the proposal before me is by way of an application for planning permission.
The roof of the terrace of which the appeal property forms part is a single roof form, with no expression of individual roofs for the separate houses that make up the terrace. The proposal is for a loft conversion that incorporates a rear tile hung dormer extension, a roof light to the rear roof slope and 2 roof lights to the front roof slope. The proposed rear roof dormer would take the form of 2 conjoined traditionally formed dormer windows with pitched roofs. This rear dormer extension would be positioned towards the centre of the appeal dwelling and would be narrower than the appeal dwelling. It would also be set well down from the roof ridge and up from the roof edge.
The design of the proposed dormer extension as 2 conjoined shallow pitched roofed dormer windows has the effect of breaking down its apparent scale and would hip with the existing roof slope. This design approach would lead to the apparent scale of the proposed dormer extension complimenting the scale of the appeal property.
Whilst the proposed dormer would be a stand-alone addition to the rear roof slope of the terrace, it would be clad in complimentary tiling to match the existing roof slope and would appear to be detailed and of a scale that would result in it appearing as a subordinate addition to the appeal dwelling. Likewise, the proposed roof lights to the front and rear roof slopes would be small in scale, with a minimal visual presence and would be complimentary additions to the appeal dwelling. As such the proposal as a whole would accord with the design guidance set out in the Royal Borough of [name], Basements and Conversions Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018)
From my site visit it was apparent that there are other similarly scaled and formed rear roof dormer extensions in the wider local area. The Council’s officer report for the planning application indicates that the dormer window extensions in the immediate local area, on the rear roof slope of the semi-detached house at [address], which are visible from the rear garden of the appeal dwelling, are considered by the Council to be unlawful as they appear to the Council to be larger than granted planning permission1.
However, no further details have been provided by the Council on this matter and I can only afford this limited weight in my considerations. As such, the proposal would be read in this existing context and would not appear as a top heavy or discordant addition to the appeal property and would accord with the local character and streetscene of traditionally formed terraced town houses and semi-detached dwellings. 1 Planning Ref:19/1554/HD
For these reasons, I find that the proposal would not result in any significant harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling, or that of the local area.
Section 05
Conditions
Along with the standard condition relating to the timing of implementation, I have attached conditions to ensure design quality, which along with the required compliance with the approved drawings, further require that the materials used for the proposal match those of the appeal dwelling. To protect privacy, I have also imposed a condition relating to the glazing to the bathroom window in the dormer extension.
Section 06
Conclusion
The appeal is allowed.
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 209No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 15 April 2023Differs from the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 24 March 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3309722
- Application reference
- 22/2020/HD
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Royal Borough of Greenwich
- Planning authority code
- E09000011
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
- Unknown
- 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
- 22 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
- 25 October 2022
- Valid date
- 25 October 2022
- Start date
- 25 January 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 8 August 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 19 April 2023
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
- 31436
- 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