Appeal 3337557
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
for conversion of roof from single pitched to mansard.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the “Framework”) was published in December 2023, but there are no material changes relevant to the substance of the Appeal.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site is situated within a residential street with a mix of traditional and more contemporary architectural forms including flat roofed blocks of flats.
The subject dwelling is a reasonably modern two storey house with a pitched roof running front to rear, the western gable of which is particularly visible in the street scene. The dwelling as a whole is of a simple, but pleasant design and has a neutral impact upon the street scene. Reference has been made by the Council to the impact of the proposal upon the surrounding [address] Conservation Area, although I have been provided with no documentation that demonstrates where its boundary lies.
Notwithstanding this, in contrast to the existing architecture of [site address] the mansard roof form proposed would constitute an alien feature that would fail to relate to any buildings within the immediate locality and would appear as an incongruous design within the street. Therefore, whilst I note that no58 has a block of flat roof flats next to it, and that there is another similar style block next to no60 [address], a collection of mixed size, shape, height and styles of buildings including blocks of flats, Victorian houses, new-build properties and bungalows does not mean that anything should go. I note the example of the house on [address] that has a mansard style roof at the front and whilst it is not for me to comment on the appropriateness of this or otherwise, ultimately each case must be assess on its own merits.
I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the area and would be contrary to Policy D4 of the London Plan 2021, Policy CS14 of the Merton Core Planning Strategy (2011) and [name] D2, DM D3 and DM D4 of the [name] and Policies Plan (2014) with together seek to deliver good design in order to respect, reinforce and enhance the local character of the area in which it is located; use appropriate architectural forms which complement and enhance the character of the wider setting, whilst also respecting and complementing the design and detailing of the original building along with its form, scale, bulk and proportions whilst conserving the setting of heritage assets.
Section 06
Conclusion
Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal 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 297No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 14 June 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 May 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3337557
- Application reference
- 23/P1831
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Merton
- Planning authority code
- E09000024
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
- 8 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 25 January 2024
- Valid date
- 25 January 2024
- Start date
- 22 February 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 1 December 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 14 June 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
- 52484
- 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