Appeal 3316605
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
5 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 demolition of existing garage and construction of a part one, part two storey side extension and a single-storey rear extension 3.0m deep incorporating pitched roof and velux lights
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the street scene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached house with a hipped roof. It forms part of a group of handsome 1930s semi-detached houses of similar appearance, most of which include attached garages to the side with gaps above at first floor level. These gaps are an important aspect of the character and appearance of the houses on the south side of the street and a feature to which I attach significant weight. On the northern side of Overmead, some of the gaps have been infilled, which has severely disrupted the unity of the group of houses.
[name] 2022 a planning application for development described as the demolition of the garage and the erection of a double storey side extension and a single storey rear extension 3.0m deep incorporating a pitched roof and Velux lights was refused by the Council1. A subsequent appeal2 against this refusal was dismissed in January 2023.
Like the earlier scheme, the current proposal would include the erection of a 2- storey side addition, the upper level of which would be set slightly behind the building line of the front elevations. A hipped roof would be formed above this 1 Planning application reference: 22/2139/HD 2 Appeal reference: APP/E5330/D/22/3310797 addition to match the slope and form of the existing roof. Unlike the earlier scheme the current proposal would be set in from the side boundary of the site by about 30cm and the upper floor windows would better match the size and design of the existing windows.
The new proposal would fill almost the entirety of the gap between the house and the side boundary and would unbalance the symmetrical arrangement of the appeal property and its attached pair, 6 Overmead. In the context of a group of houses that largely retain their original form, and in particular the side gaps at first floor level, the proposal would be an incongruous and jarring addition to the host building and the street scene.
Due to its size, siting and design I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the street scene. Therefore, it fails to comply with [name](a) and DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name] (2014) which, among other matters, require a high quality of design, limited to a scale and design appropriate to the locality. There is also conflict with the aims of Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and the guidance in the Council’s Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018).
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.
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 246No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 25 May 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 April 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3316605
- Application reference
- 22/2947/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
- 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
- 13 February 2023
- Valid date
- 13 February 2023
- Start date
- 8 March 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 18 January 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 25 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
- 33204
- 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