Appeal 6000145
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
4 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
Replacement roof with minor extensions and the installation of solar panels on the southern roofslope at [site address] , Havering [postcode]
Section 02
Preliminary Matters
The description of development above is taken from the Council’s decision notice as this provides a more accurate reflection of the proposals.
Section 03
Belt
The appeal property has previously been subject to substantial extensions when compared to the scale and volume of the original dwelling1. The proposal would further increase the height and volume of the appeal building. Although a modest addition, when combined with previous works, the proposal would be a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building.
Accordingly, it would not meet the relevant exception2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and is therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is, by definition, harmful. Issue – The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt
Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt that has spatial as well as visual aspects. The appeal property is clearly visible from the adjacent highway. Notwithstanding the existence of other built form within the vicinity of the appeal site, the openness of the Green Belt is clearly evident around the property and the wider area.
The appeal proposal would increase the volume, height and massing of the existing building and in doing so would result in a harmful loss of openness, albeit this would be limited given the scale of the proposal. This factor weighs somewhat against the appeal scheme. 1 As of 1 July 1948. 2 Paragraph 154c of the Framework. Issue – Whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm resulting from the inappropriate development, to amount to very special circumstances
The proposed roof extension would be of a sympathetic design that would improve the character and appearance of the host property. It would also allow for the maximisation of PV panels on the southern slope of the roof, thereby generating renewable energy and reducing carbon emissions. Given the scale of the proposal the extent of renewable energy benefits though is likely to be somewhat limited.
The proposal would also not harm the character or appearance of the wider surrounding area. Additionally, it would offer improved accommodation and ease of maintenance for residents of the appeal property.
Section 04
Green Belt Balance and Conclusion
The proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt that would result in a small loss of openness, in line with the Framework these matters carry substantial weight. Together the matters that the appellant has put forward attract modest weight, but do not amount to very special circumstances that are needed to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
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 2658No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 May 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 8 May 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6000145
- Application reference
- P1293.24
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Havering
- Planning authority code
- E09000016
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
- 63 m²
- Number of residences
- Not recorded
- Site in Green Belt
- Yes
- 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
- 27 February 2025
- Valid date
- 27 February 2025
- Start date
- 4 March 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 17 February 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 12 May 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
- 69407
- 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