Appeal 3343009
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
10 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 an additional floor with a new roof light to the existing 3 storey building.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the proposed creation of an additional floor with a new roof light to the existing 3 storey building at [site address] , [name], London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/23/02367, subject to the following
Section 03
conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: P-2309.1-000, P-2309.1-102. P-2309.1-104, P-2309.1-105, P-2309.1-106 and P-2309.1-103.
The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building/dwelling.
Section 04
Applications for costs
An application for an award of costs was made by [name] against the Council of the London Borough of [name]. This application will be the subject of a separate decision.
Section 05
Preliminary Matters
The description of development was amended during the course of the application. I have therefore used the wording as provided on the appellant’s appeal form and the Council’s decision notice.
Section 06
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 07
Reasons
The estate that comprises No. [site address] and its neighbouring properties is of a relatively modern construction in comparison to the historic nature of many of the buildings in the wider vicinity. At present, No. 5 and the adjoining properties at No’s 3 and 1 have a collective roofscape that slopes gently downwards to meet the roofline of No. 7. It is clear that the proposed development, which would add an additional storey to No. 5, would break up this existing arrangement.
However, the estate is already characterised by dwellings that have roofs at different heights and angles, including in the middle of a terrace. As such, the proposal would not appear to be incongruous or out of place in the context of its immediate surroundings. The extension would also be of a size that would complement the existing building, and I am satisfied that the appearance of No. 5 would not appear overly dominant or overbearing as a result.
The appeal site is adjacent to The Tower Conservation Area. However, No.5 is not visible from within the Conservation Area and I am satisfied that the proposal would not harm its setting or the contribution that this makes to its significance.
I therefore conclude that the proposal would conform with [name].DH1 and D.DH2 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2020. Taken together, the relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development is well designed and that it preserves character and appearance.
Section 08
Other Matters
I note that the Council’s officer report states that, as presented within the approved plans, the development would not adhere to building regulations as the ceiling height above the proposed staircase would be below two metres. However, the design of the internal staircase is not dependent upon this planning permission, and I can see no reason why it could not be adjusted slightly to ensure that the requirements of buildings regulations are met, while also avoiding any change to the external appearance of the building.
Section 09
Conditions
In the interests of certainty and good design, I have imposed conditions to identify the relevant timescales and plans, and a further condition to require matching materials.
Section 10
Conclusion
The proposed development is in accordance with the development plan when considered as a whole. Having had regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be 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 4753No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 August 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 25 July 2024 (page 1)
Costs Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 4753No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 August 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 25 July 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3343009
- Application reference
- PA/23/02367/NC
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Tower Hamlets
- Planning authority code
- E09000030
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
- 39 m²
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 22 April 2024
- Valid date
- 1 May 2024
- Start date
- 10 May 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 6 March 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 19 August 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
- 55848
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21