Appeal 6000066
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 first floor rear/side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
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 to give the parties opportunity to comment on the revisions.
At the time of my visit the construction of a single storey extension was under way. It is suggested by the appellant that what is built so far accords with an extant permission for a single storey extension1. The plans for this are not before me. It is not for me to come to a view on this either way in the context of this appeal, however I note that what is shown on the appeal drawings and referred to as existing does not accord with what I saw on site, which suggests pitched roofs to the rear and side.
Section 04
Main Issue
The effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal dwelling is at one end of a short terrace that forms part of a small housing estate that is tucked in behind other housing. The buildings that make up the estate utilise straightforward forms, with full gables and limited additions.
The proposal would take the form of two first floor elements that would straddle the rear corner of the existing dwelling, with one that would project to the rear and one to the side. As a result, although the extensions would be sizeable when considered together, they would both have relatively modest additive forms, that would give them a subservient relationship with the host dwelling and ensure that 1 Allowed at appeal, Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/E5330/D/21/3276009 they would not appear overly large. The width of the front extension would be successfully mitigated by its significant set back from the front of the terrace.
They would however terminate with hipped roofs, that would be significantly at odds with the strong and simple gable ends of the host terrace and the other dwellings in the small estate. This uncomfortable relationship would be made worse by a mis match of roof pitches, which would create an odd mix of forms that would appear clumsy and ill related to the host terrace, especially where the two extensions would be viewed together from the rear of neighbouring dwellings. The importance of matching pitches is referred to in paragraph i.79 of the Council’s guidance2.
In summary, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would not accord with Policy D3 of The London Plan 2021 and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy 2014. Together these seek to ensure that development proposals are well designed, and positively respond to existing forms, massing and proportions.
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
- 20 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
- 6000066
- Application reference
- 24/3342/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
- 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
- 24 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
- 31 December 2024
- Valid date
- 31 December 2024
- Start date
- 9 January 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 10 December 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 20 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
- 64950
- 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