Appeal 3344244
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
7 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 construction of a single storey rear extension, replacement of garage with a double storey side extension, hip to gable loft extension with a rear dormer and two rooflights to front roof slope.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction of a single storey rear extension, replacement of garage with a double storey side extension, hip to gable loft extension with a rear dormer and two rooflights to front roof slope at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/4106/HD, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: B58165-00-3000 [name] and B58165- 00-3100 [name].
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those in the existing building.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
As the description of the proposal varies between submitted documents, I have used the description from the Council’s decision notice, as this is a full and accurate description that has also been used by the appellant for their statement
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling, the terrace of which it forms part and that of the local area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal dwelling is a two storey end of terrace house, with the front of the dwelling featuring a two storey bay with gable above and the main roof is hipped to the side. To the front of the property is a good sized front garden and to the side is a detached garage with off street parking for a single car and there is also a good sized garden to the rear.
The appeal dwelling is located in an area of similar properties, many of which appear to have undergone significant alteration and extension, including two storey side extensions to end of terrace properties. This lends the area a disparate appearance with limited cohesion between the character groups of short terraces within the street.
The Council have recently granted planning permission1 for the replacement of the detached garage with a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension. The council have also recently issued a [name] or Development2 for permitted development3 for a loft conversion with hip to gable, rear dormer and two front roof lights. From my site visit it was evident that neither of these had been implemented.
Under the requirements of the GPDO, these separate extensions could not be implemented in combination under their existing approval and permitted development rights. The appeal proposal is a combination of these two separate proposals.
Although the council argues that the appellant has no fallback position with regard to the appeal proposal, it is open to the appellant to implement either of the developments for which an existing permission is in place. I have given this great weight in my consideration of this appeal.
The proposed dormer extension does not accord with the design guidance given in the Royal Borough of [name] Planning Document (2023) (the SPD), which advises in paragraph i.34 that full width dormer extensions do not integrate well with pitched roof houses and in paragraph i.66 advises that dormer extensions be set 0.5 metres in from the roof ridge, eaves and party walls. However, the permitted dormer extension would also not meet these requirements.
On balance, I find that the additional roof of the proposed two storey side extension would ameliorate the effect of the proposed full width dormer on the extended gable ended main roof, by providing an additional hipped roof form that would reduce the apparent scale of the dormer in the appeal proposal in relation to the extended roof form of the house as proposed. Although not in accordance with the design Guidance in the SPD for dormer extensions, this is design guidance that should be applied to the individual proposal and context, and I have considered these benefits in relation to the effect of the dormer as permitted development.
The proposed change of a gable end for the hipped end of the existing roof is not replicated by a gable end for the proposed side extension. This would be 1 Planning Ref: 23/3347/HD 2 Planning Ref: 23/3348/CP 3 Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B and Class C of Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) set down from the roof ridge of the main house and would hip with the proposed gable end to the main house, this would result in the proposed extensions appearing as subordinate and secondary additions by reflecting the existing hipped end of the appeal dwelling. This would also reflect the hipped roof form at the other end of the terrace of which the appeal dwelling forms part, and of most of the end of terraces on the street. As such, I do not find that the proposal would result in a discordant and incongruous development or would unbalance the visual appearance of the terrace of which it forms part
Although the proposal as a whole would result in a significantly larger house than existing, it would appear that it would result in a house of similar scale to others in the street that have undergone significant extension, including two storey side extensions. As such the proposal would result in the appeal dwelling reflecting the existing streetscene of the local area.
For these reasons, I do not find that the proposal would result in any significant harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling, the terrace of which it forms part or that of the local area. As such, the proposal accords with Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] (2014), Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). Collectivley these seek development, including extensions, that is of high quality design, responds to site context and integrates with the local area.
Section 06
Conditions
Along with the standard condition for the time limit on implementation of the development, in the interests of design quality, I have also attached conditions requiring compliance with approved plans and materials that match those of the existing building.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons above, the appeal is 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 209No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 September 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 21 August 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3344244
- Application reference
- 23/4106/HD
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Royal Borough of Greenwich
- Planning authority code
- E09000011
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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 13 May 2024
- Valid date
- 13 May 2024
- Start date
- 7 June 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 February 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 10 September 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
- 56855
- 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