Appeal 3311706
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
erection of front dormer, alterations to materials on the rear dormer, rear elevation alterations and modest non-material internal alterations.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
[address] is an L shaped cul-de-sac with a mix of residential and industrial and commercial buildings and a college. The residential component comprises a mix of flats in some of the former industrial units and 2 storey terraced and semi-detached houses. The appeal site is the end house in a terrace of 5 houses joined to a 3 storey building that appeared to be converted into flats.
Section 2.2.1 of the Home Improvements Camden Planning Guidance (2021) advises that front dormers can have a harmful visual impact but are likely to be acceptable where they are part of the existing character, illustrated by a terrace of houses where the majority had dormers. The neighbouring house, No 14, is the only house within the terrace with a front dormer. As such, it does not define the character of the terrace. The proposed dormer would dominate the roof, appear out of keeping with other houses within the terrace and add to the incongruity of the neighbouring dormer, thus harming the appearance of the street scene.
I note that there are front dormers on a pair of semi-detached houses at the end of the cul-de-sac. However, these are separated from other houses by 3 storey former industrial buildings and are partially screened by trees. They therefore appear discrete from, and share a different design to, the appeal property and its neighbours and as such do not contribute to their character and context. The appellant has also referred to other dormers within the street. I saw side dormers on the roof of 2 of the former industrial buildings including the building adjoining the appeal site. Whilst they were visible from the street, they were part of a distinctly different roofscape from the appeal site. Apart from their industrial design, the roof ridges on the buildings are a storey higher than the appeal property, perpendicular to the street rather than parallel to it, and set behind brick parapets and gable ends. As such the dormers on those buildings are not comparable to the proposed development.
Overall, I conclude that the proposed front dormer would harm the appearance of the appeal property and that of the terrace of which it is part and thus the proposal conflicts with Policy D1 of the Camden Local Plan (2017) and Policy D3 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan (2016) which require high quality development that complements local character.
Section 05
[name]
I have had regard to other matters raised by the appellant including the lack of through access and limited pedestrian activity close to the site. However, these do not outweigh the harm that I have identified.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
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 128No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 May 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 April 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3311706
- Application reference
- 2022/1006/P
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Camden
- Planning authority code
- E09000007
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
- 240 m²
- 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 22 November 2022
- Valid date
- 22 November 2022
- Start date
- 26 January 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 20 October 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 10 May 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
- 32381
- 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