Appeal 6000038
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
erection of a ground floor rear extension, part two-storey part single-storey front extension and loft conversion with erection of a rear dormer.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
The Council’s draft Local Plan is at an advanced stage and should therefore attract reasonable weight in the decision-making process.
On 12 December 2024 the Government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework. Its content relative to the main issue of the appeal is largely unchanged. It has not therefore been necessary for me to give the main parties opportunity to comment on this matter.
Section 04
Main Issue
The effect of the proposed roof material on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal building stands in a mature residential area. It is characterised by detached and semi-detached dwellings that occupy generously sized plots and are set back from the tree lined road. The dwellings date from the mid-20th century. They adopt a consistent style that includes long roof slopes that often extend down to the ground floor eaves level. Hips are also a strong feature of the area. As a result, the roofs of the dwellings are highly prominent. This consistency is emphasised by the almost exclusive use of small dark red and brown roof tiles.
Isolated exceptions to this are identified in the submissions. These appear to be as a result of the recent redevelopment of individual dwellings. At my visit I saw that these dwellings appear somewhat out of place, particularly where a grey roof tile or slate has been utilised.
The proposal would see a grey tile used for the dwelling’s new roof. This would appear out of place. In addition, the proposal would introduce an alternative fenestration that would differ from the mid-20th century style that prevails locally and is a change that would be further emphasised by the use of an alien roof material. For these reasons I find that the proposed roof material would result in a dwelling that appears out of place and an anomaly in the streetscene. The proposal would thus harm the character and appearance of the area.
A previous permission1 for a similar scheme at the appeal dwelling included drawings that specified grey slates. However, the Council imposed a condition to require matching materials and stated that this would alleviate the impact of the proposal on the host dwelling. It is not for me to come to a view on the validity of that condition in this appeal. However, the condition casts considerable doubt over whether the change of roof material could be carried out if the extant scheme was completed, and this matter is therefore insufficient to allow me to accept the change of material.
In summary, the proposed roof material would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would thus be contrary to Policy LP 1 of the Local Plan 2018 and Emerging Policy 28 of the Draft Richmond Local Plan 2023, which together seek to ensure that development proposals respect, contribute and enhance local character.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons above, the appeal should 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 77No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 14 February 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 February 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6000038
- Application reference
- 24/2366/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
- Not recorded
- Appeal reason
- refused
- Type detail
- No Application Type Assocaited
- Jurisdiction
- No Jurisdiction Associated
- Link status
- Not recorded
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- 0 hectares
- Floor space
- 516 m²
- Number of residences
- Not recorded
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- 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
- 4 December 2024
- Valid date
- 4 December 2024
- Start date
- 10 December 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 8 November 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 14 February 2025
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- Not recorded
- Bespoke
- Not recorded
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- 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
- Back Office
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 64654
- 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