Appeal 6000471
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
8 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
described on the application form as ‘Loft conversion’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a hip to gable loft conversion with front and rear dormers, gable end window and roof lights to front at [site address] , Rainham, Havering [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0633.25, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with approved drawing nos: SDE 007-04-25 (Sheet 1) SDE 007-04-25 (Sheet 2), and SDE 007-04-25 (Sheet 3).
The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.
Prior to the first use/occupation of the first floor bedroom accommodation, details of the obscure glazing and degree of opening for the window serving the landing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure
The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.
Section 04
Preliminary Matters and Main Issue
Differing to the description of development in the banner heading above, the Council’s decision notice accurately describes the development as shown on the supporting plans as ‘Hip to gable loft conversion with front and rear dormers, gable end window and roof lights to front’. I am satisfied that there would be no prejudice to the appellant in using this description since it essentially explains what works the ‘loft conversion’ entails.
The Council has not objected to the hip to gable loft conversion, the rear dormer or the roof lights to the front. I have no reason to disagree. My recommendation therefore focuses on the effect of the front dormer on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons for the Recommendation
The appeal site comprises a single-storey detached dwelling in a residential area. [address] features a linear arrangement and eclectic mix of dwelling types and sizes, with a number having been altered and extended.
When considered cumulatively with the other elements of the proposal, the front dormer would result in an increase in the scale and mass of the existing dwelling, but its design would remain sympathetic to the host property. It would not span the full width of the roof or project above the ridge. It would also have a pitched roof. The use of matching materials would assimilate with, and complement, the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Consequently, it would not appear as a visually dominant feature within the front roof slope.
There are a number of dormers of varying styles, sizes and positions in the street, as well as some front ones in [address], [address], [address], [address] North, [address]. Given the absence of a single, clearly defined dormer style, the proposed dormer in this case would not appear incongruous or conspicuously out of keeping within the wider context.
The Havering London Borough Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011) (SPD) advises that dormer windows should be well contained within the body of the roof, set back from the eaves and positioned well in from the gable ends. It further states that dormers fronting the highway should incorporate pitched roofs and should not exceed 1.2 metres in width, with the width also not exceeding the height. Whilst the proposed front dormer would not strictly comply with all parts of SPD, this document provides guidance rather than policy. In this instance, I am satisfied that the appeal scheme would be broadly consistent with the overall objective of ensuring developments are well designed and appropriate to their setting and context.
Overall, the front dormer would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. It would accord with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan (2021) which seeks high quality design. Furthermore, it would accord with chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in respect of achieving well-designed places.
Section 06
Conditions
Conditions relating to the commencement of development and for works to be in accordance with approved plans are necessary for clarity and certainty. In the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area, a condition requiring the external materials of the extensions to match those used in the existing building is necessary. A condition relating to the use of obscure glazing to the second floor landing gable window is necessary to protect the privacy of neighbouring occupiers.
Section 07
Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons given above the appeal would comply with the development plan. I therefore recommend it be allowed.
Section 08
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Planning permission is therefore granted, subject to the conditions set out above.
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 1895No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 24 June 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 April 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6000471
- Application reference
- P0633.25
- 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
- Householder
- 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
- 95 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 4 August 2025
- Valid date
- 4 August 2025
- Start date
- 7 August 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 July 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 24 June 2026
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
- 90911
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21