Appeal 3320054
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 loft conversion with front dormer window.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a loft conversion with front dormer window at [site address] , Eltham, Greenwich [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application 22/3882/HD, dated 19 November 2022, 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: CRR/G41/003 Rev P8, CRR/G41/004 Rev P8 and CRR/G41/005 Rev P8
The materials to be used in the construction of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
Section 03
[name]
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling, the terrace of which it forms part and that of the local area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal dwelling is a two storey end of terrace house located at the junction of Green Lane and Cambridge Green. The terrace is curved in plan and is set behind a shared green space that opens onto both streets. The front and main entrance to the appeal dwelling faces onto Cambridge Green. This layout is mirrored in the terrace on the other side of Cambridge Green.
The proposed loft extension involves a roof light to the roof slope facing Green Lane and the addition of a traditionally formed tile hung dormer window with pitched roof, which would be added to the hipped roof slope of the appeal Appeal Decision APP/E5330/D/23/332005 4 dwelling facing Cambridge Green. The proposed dormer window would be centrally positioned, reflecting the existing symmetry of the front elevation, centring on the main entrance. It would be set down from the roof ridge and from the sides of the roof slope and would be set slightly away from the eaves.
Due to the modest scale of the proposed dormer window and that it would be set in from the perimeter edges of the roof slope into which it would sit, it would appear to be a proportionate and subordinate addition to the appeal dwelling. The proposed materials and the detailed design for the dormer window would match those of the existing dwelling. As such, it would not appear unduly dominating or prominent.
The appellant has drawn my attention to an existing dormer window to [address], a similar end of terrace house at the end of the opposite terrace, which faces onto Green Lane. Similar to this existing dormer window, the proposal would, in immediate and wider views, appears as a complimentary addition to its host dwelling and would not appear unduly prominent or dominant to the appeal dwelling or to the terrace of which it forms part. I have, therefore, given this considerable weight in my considerations.
Whilst the Royal Borough of [name] and Conversions Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018) sets out that generally the Council will not grant planning permission for extensions on front facing roof slopes, this is design advice and guidance that should be applied to individual circumstances and development proposals. For the reasons given above, I find that that the proposal would preserve the existing appearance in terms of height, scale and visual interest and would accord with this guidance.
As such, the proposal would not result in any harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling, the terrace of which it forms part or to that of the local area. As such it would accord with policy DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] (2014), policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and paragraphs 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021). These collectively seek to ensure that development, including extensions, demonstrate high quality design and integrate with the local area.
Section 05
Conditions
I have included the standard condition relating to the timing of the implementation of development, and to ensure design quality I have attached a condition requiring compliance with approved plans and a condition requiring that materials used match those of the existing building.
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 August 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 27 July 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3320054
- Application reference
- 22/3882/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
- 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
- 7 April 2023
- Valid date
- 7 April 2023
- Start date
- 20 June 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 16 January 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 15 August 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
- 37171
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21