Appeal 3313409
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
the alteration of roof to form gable end with flat roof and rear dormer.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
Although worded different on the Council’s Decision Notice and appeal form the description of development is taken from the planning application form.
Section 04
Main issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
[address] South comprises a mixture of properties, whilst the majority are semi-detached to each end are several detached properties. No.64 is located to the southern end with two detached bungalows beyond up to the junction with [address].
The appeal property has a fully hipped roof with a limited ridge length running perpendicular to the street. The proposal would alter the roof form and its orientation, creating gable ends to each side and accommodating a large box style dormer to the rear. While there are examples of other properties in the area which have added dormer windows or altered the hip to a gable end, these work with the existing roof form. In contrast, the proposed crown roof with a flat top would fundamentally change the appearance of the property and would significantly increase the bulk and scale of the roof. The resultant form would be both visually prominent and out of keeping with the prevailing character of the area.
I cannot agree with the appellant that the flat roof would not be especially visible as No. 64 is taller than its neighbours, and due to the spacing between the properties the flank elevations are seen in views along [address] South and from [address] over the bungalows. The top heavy and incongruous appearance would be highly intrusive, disrupting the rhythm and pattern of development within the area.
The appearance of No.64 is different to its immediate neighbours, however there are other properties nearby, e.g., Nos. 52, 54 and 56 which have a similar roof form, and it is not particularly unusual. I accept that permitted development rights can enable large box style dormer windows to be inserted, but such provisions cannot be incorporated into the appeal property in its existing form. Moreover, each proposal is to be considered on its own merits and I find that the scale and design of the proposed alterations would fail to integrate with the existing property and would not positively contribute to the local character.
Therefore, in conclusion the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Thus, it would conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) which together seek to ensure a high quality built environment which respects and enhances local character.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, 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 362No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 24 March 2024Differs from the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 2 March 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3313409
- Application reference
- 22/03873/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
- 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
- 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 19 December 2022
- Valid date
- 19 December 2022
- Start date
- 19 January 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 November 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 24 March 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
- No
- 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
- 30222
- 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