Appeal 3340683
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
a first floor rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a staggered mid-terrace house within a residential estate, the rear/side elevation of which is exposed to and highly visible from within the [address] street scene to the north.
The dwelling currently has a flat roof single storey extension/conservatory, set against the exposed element of the two storey flank elevation of [address].
The first floor extension would be constructed in line with the rear elevation of no50. It would be of a greater width than half of the existing dwelling however the key views would be side-on and what would render the proposal most incongruous is the height of the flat roof solution proposed to be employed. I note reference to [address] which has had a similar extension to that proposed, and which is quite clearly visible from St. [address]. However, whilst it is not normally for me to comment on the appropriateness of this or otherwise, it does demonstrate the incongruity of such a two storey flat roof scheme.
The flat roof design may well minimise the height of the extension and whilst it would be framed by the roof of the house behind, nonetheless by virtue of its height it would result in an incongruous development to the detriment of the appearance of the host dwelling and the wider terrace of which it forms part. [name] am not convinced that the flat roof is a superior design approach. I also noted the examples of rear projections on houses fronting [address], to the rear of the appeal site, however they are of a different design and lack the staggered layout that is found in [address]. Notwithstanding the comparable proposal at no28, ultimately each case must be assessed on its own merits.
I therefore find that the proposal would have a harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the area and conflicts with Policy LP1 of the London Borough of [site address] Local Plan 2018 which requires all development to be of high architectural and urban design quality.
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
- 1 July 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 June 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3340683
- Application reference
- 23/3107/HOT
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E09000027
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
- 1
- 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
- 14 March 2024
- Valid date
- 15 April 2024
- Start date
- 1 May 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 26 January 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 1 July 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
- 53270
- 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