Appeal 3326627
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
4 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 ‘creation of a loft conversion raising the ridge in line with the neighbouring property, with a dormer to the rear of the property, installation of x3 velux rooflights to the front elevation, new roof to be finished with slates.’
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
No.19 is an end property to a short terrace and forms part of the rows of terraced properties along [address] and the neighbouring streets which are of a similar design.
Following the topography, some of the terraces have stepped heights and they were originally designed with a hipped roof to each end. There are now, however, properties in both [address] and the neighbouring streets where a gable end (as proposed) has been introduced, or where the ridgeline has been raised - identifiable by the additional brick course(s) above the first-floor window.
As the lowest property in the terrace of four, the proposed increase in height to No.19 would not be overly conspicuous. However, whilst there is some established variation to the ridgelines, the changes to the roof profile and its prominence would be accentuated by the proposed large box roof dormer to be inserted to the rear. Extending across the majority of the roof, the design is contrary to the advice in the Council's Supplementary Planning Document 4 - 'Design of [name] 2006 (SPD4) and would result in a top-heavy form of development.
There are some examples of box roof dormers within the vicinity, although they mainly relate to mid-terrace properties. I do, however, acknowledge that No.[address] appears to have undertaken a similar development to the appeal proposal. Such alterations are not prevalent and there are no specific details of that scheme or its planning history before me. Moreover, each proposal is to be considered on its own merits and in this instance, the combination and scale of the alterations would result in an incongruous roof form. This would be to the detriment of the host property, unity with the rest of the terrace, and, together, would be harmful to the prevailing pattern of development.
I acknowledge that the materials would match the existing property and due to the terrace's location mid-way along the road the rear is not visually prominent. Nonetheless, the roof alterations would be visible from the surrounding properties and would be a dominating feature.
In conclusion I find that the development would result in harm to the appearance of the host property and the wider character of the area. Accordingly, there would be conflict with Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan (2018) and the SPD4 requiring development to be designed to the highest standards and to respect the local context.
For the reasons set out and having regard to all other matters raised the appeal is 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
- 16 November 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 31 October 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3326627
- Application reference
- DM2023/00343
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Sutton
- Planning authority code
- E09000029
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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 26 July 2023
- Valid date
- 19 July 2023
- Start date
- 27 September 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 May 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 16 November 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
- 42084
- 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