Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3333336

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 works

One-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 the existing rear extension; the erection of a new single storey rear extension, and addition of new rear facing windows.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of the existing rear extension; the erection of a new single storey rear extension, and addition of new rear facing windows at [site address] SE27 in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 23/02116/FUL, dated 3 July 2023 and subject to the schedule of conditions attached herewith.

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

    The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its surroundings.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    There are two separate aspects to the proposed development: (i) the alterations and additions to the rear elevation (albeit this is technically a flank elevation because the dwelling’s frontage is to [address]) and (ii) the alterations to the front of the existing three storey extension granted permission by the Council in July 1999.

    As regards the rear, because of the orientation of the dwelling and its corner position at a junction in [address] this elevation is prominent in the street scene of [address]. The appearance of this wall is not untypical of a rear or flank elevation normally hidden from public view and is of little or no aesthetic merit. This is due to the combination of the jarring effect of the disparate roof slope profile and its contrast with that of the attached No. 29; the prominence of the drainage pipes; the random nature of the window positions, and the fact that in views from [address] immediately to the south, the pebbledash finish is read with the frontage facing brick of the 1999 extension. This visual disharmony between the two walls has, in itself, the effect of drawing attention to the utilitarian appearance of the rear elevation.

    Given this existing situation I see no objection to the design and materials proposed for the replacement widows. And although the additional window is somewhat large, this does have the benefit of bringing visual relief to the sight of the extensive area of blank wall. The flat roof extension and the slimline bi-fold windows would be consistent with the more contemporary appearance of the other alterations and in any event would be largely concealed by the fence on the boundary to the road.

    Turning to (ii), the alterations to the extension, I can entirely understand the Council’s orthodox approach of resisting the loss of the brickwork to the proposed render and the replacement of the more traditional window design with the single casement aluminium ppc finish. However, whilst the brickwork and windows of the extension attempt to match those of the original building, I consider that they fail to disguise its inherently unsympathetic design.

    Because of its forward position the extension is dominant rather than subordinate; due to its three storey height the windows are in a lower position and much smaller, whilst the dormer is too contemporary, overly bulky with a flat roof and has excessive coverage of the roof plane. And as mentioned in paragraph 4 above, the extension reads incongruously with the rear elevation in the approach from the south in [address].

    In these circumstances I consider that the appellant’s design solution of unifying the appearance of the side and rear elevations with the wrap-around approach of replacement windows and the lime slurry render, and thereby providing a clear contrast with the original dwelling, has sufficient merit for me to allow the appeal.

    The appeal scheme does not follow the Council’s Design Guide, but the need for the occasional exception to be made is the reason why the document is guidance and not prescriptive. If my judgement is sound there will be no harm caused to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its surroundings or conflict with the objectives of Policies Q2, Q5 & Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2021 and Government policy in Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023.

    The appeal is therefore allowed. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is needed for the avoidance of doubt and is in the interests of proper planning. An external materials condition is required in the interests of visual amenity.

  4. Section 05

    Schedule of Conditions

    The development to which this permission relates and is approved shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this Decision;

    The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: OS Location Plan; [name]. A100_12_REV; A100_11_REV; A100_10_REV; A100_09_REV; A100_08_REV; A100_07_REV; A100_06_REV; A100_05_REV; A100_04_REV; A100_03_REV; A100_02_REV;

    The materials, including the colour finish, to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with details first submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 3

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 204No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    1 March 2024Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    8 February 2024 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3333336
Application reference
23/02116/FUL
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
London Borough of Lambeth
Planning authority code
E09000022

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
4 m²
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
16 November 2023
Valid date
22 November 2023
Start date
28 November 2023
Planning authority decision date
25 August 2023
Appeal decision date
1 March 2024

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
47484
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