Appeal 6002701
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 with infill and rear dormer, two new windows to the front elevation.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Loft conversion with infill and rear dormer, two new windows to the front elevation at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/3540, 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 nos EX-L003, EX-P001, EX-P002, EX-P004, EX-E001, EX-E002, EX-E003, EX-E004, EX-S001, EX-S002, PR-L001, PR-P002, PR-P003, PR- E001, PR-E002, PR-E003, PR-E004, PR-S001 and PR-S002.
The external materials of the extension 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 property.
Section 04
Reasons
Number 28c is a single-storey semi-detached dwelling. It has an unusual roof form, comprising two parallel double pitched roofs separated by an area of flat roof which extend across the width of the property running parallel to the road. The front roofslope facing towards [address] incorporates twin front facing gables.
The proposal would infill the void between the parallel pitched roofs and construct a large rear dormer which would extend across much of the width of the rear roofslope. Due to its size and limited set in from the edges of the roof, the rear dormer would be a large and bulky addition to the property. However, the rear elevation is not of any particular architectural merit and appears somewhat overwhelmed by the height of the taller two-storey properties either side. The proposed roof extension would be set below the eaves of these neighbouring properties and, in the context of these larger buildings, it would not appear as a disproportionate or unduly dominant addition to the host property.
The changes to the rear elevation of the property would only be glimpsed above the single-storey garage fronting [address]. The infill extension would be no higher than the existing ridge line and would not be readily visible from the street, with the only changes seen to the front elevation being the addition of windows which would be acceptable.
For these reasons, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host property. It would therefore accord with Policy 28 of the London Borough of [site address] Local Plan 2025 which requires development to be of high quality design demonstrating amongst other things that it is compatible in scale.
Section 05
Conditions
No conditions have been suggested by the parties. In addition to the standard condition relating to commencement of the development, in the interests of clarity, I have imposed a plans condition. To ensure a satisfactory appearance, a condition requiring matching materials is necessary.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, the appeal should be allowed.
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 142No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 16 March 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 March 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6002701
- Application reference
- PA25/3540
- 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
- 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
- 316 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
- 16 December 2025
- Valid date
- 16 December 2025
- Start date
- 5 February 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 8 December 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 16 March 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
- 85974
- 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