Appeal 3369899
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
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
for an additional storey extension to create a master bedroom, dressing room and bathroom.
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 mid-terrace house constructed post second world war of a quasi-modernist design signified by its fenestration and mono-pitched roof. There are some examples of mansard roof extensions within close proximity to it, including at [address] next door, along with nos128 and 130a; all of these have red brick party walls to their flanks with a pair of windows set within a slated roof and set the immediate context for the appeal proposal. I have also had regard to the other examples cited by the appellant, especially within [address] and at [address]. I have not been provided with details of those proposals, and whilst the proposed scheme at [address] has been cited, and it not for me to comment on the appropriateness of this design or otherwise, it appears that that it was deemed permitted development; but ultimately each case must be assessed on its own merits.
[name] consider that the appeal proposal by itself would amount to a high quality design, however it cannot be viewed in isolation and the most immediate design cue for a mansard extension must be that at no122 immediately next door. Having regard to the other examples due south of the appeal site, I consider that the use of metal cladding and the greater height would appear incongruous when viewed against its immediate neighbour.
Therefore, whilst I accept that the character within the terrace is slightly varied, the proposal would add a further design concept to the mix which would appear confused within the street scene. Taking into account the relatively low stature of the host dwelling itself, particularly when viewed from the rear elevation, I consider that overall the proposed roof extension would not appear subordinate in form notwithstanding that the window proportions would generally reflect the original post war aesthetic.
It does not appear that the Council objects to the principle of a roof extension per se, and therefore I consider that there are other ways of making effective use of land. [name] consider that the proposal would have a harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the area and conflicts with Policies Q5 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2021 which seek to sustain the local distinctiveness of Lambeth, having regard to, amongst other things, siting, orientation and layout and relationship with other buildings and do not permit roof additions and mansards where they would harm the architectural integrity of the original building or its group.
Section 05
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
- 12 September 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 2 September 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3369899
- Application reference
- 25/01023/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
- 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
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- 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
- 24 July 2025
- Valid date
- 24 July 2025
- Start date
- 28 July 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 May 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 12 September 2025
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
- 76285
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21