Appeal 6000562
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
‘Loft conversion, creating two beds and a WC. Pergola at rear Ground floor’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ‘Loft conversion, creating two beds and a WC. Pergola at rear Ground floor’ at [site address] [site address] , Romford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0650.25, 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 drawing numbers: Proposed Block Plan - 201 [name]; [name] – 202 [name]; [name] and [name] 203 - [name]; [name] and [name] – 204 [name]; [name] and [name] – 205 [name]; [name] - 206 [name]; Proposed 3D [name] and Rear - 207 [name].
The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and local area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site includes a two-storey terraced dwelling with a rear garden. I understand the property was originally semi-detached which was extended to the side and then separated from the former host building. The proposal includes a dormer roof extension to facilitate a loft conversion as well as a pergola to the rear and a rooflight to the front pitch. The Council does not take issue with the latter two elements, and I see no reason to disagree. As such, I will focus my assessment on the roof extension.
My attention is drawn to the Council’s ‘[name] and Alterations’ Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD), although the Council has not provided a copy. This evidently advises that dormers should be contained well within the body of the roof by being set well back from the eaves and by setting the sides well in from any gables or party walls.
The dormer would have a set down from the host ridge, particularly as it is stepped at the chimney, as well as being set in from either side and back from the eaves. The SPD does not elaborate on what ‘well within’ means in practice, but to my mind while the dormer is relatively large, it would not overwhelm the host roof. While the Council refers to symmetry between the semis, the host and adjoining properties are now part of a terrace and the converted dwelling to the side includes a two-storey rear outrigger shared with the host property. As such, this has already changed the host roofscape while I also observed other outriggers and dormers to the rear of adjacent dwellings. Moreover, this would only be discernible from the rear of other properties which would be read as part of the varied local roofscape.
Taken together, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host property or local area. This would accord with policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 – 2031 (adopted November 2021) which seeks to ensure development proposals are informed by and respect the distinctive qualities, character and features of the site and local area. The proposal would also accord with the advice in the SPD.
Section 05
Conditions
There are no suggested conditions before me. For the avoidance of doubt, I have imposed the standard time commencement, approved plans and matching materials conditions to ensure clarity for all concerned and ensure the character and appearance of the host dwelling and local area is protected.
Section 06
Conclusion
The proposal would accord with the development plan taken as a whole and advice in the SPD. As such, the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions given.
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 550No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 December 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 9 December 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6000562
- Application reference
- P0650.25
- 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
- Planning Appeals - Full
- 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
- 15 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
- 20 August 2025
- Valid date
- 20 August 2025
- Start date
- 2 September 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 July 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 22 December 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
- 82072
- 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