Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 6006566

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 works

One-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

construction of a first floor front extension, part single, part two storey rear extension with rear roof extension. Replacement rear dormer removing terrace and removal of side dormer. Demolition and replacement single storey side extension, garage conversion with new roof over and removal of rearmost non original chimney stack. Replacement matching front dormer, replacement of entrance porch with open roof canopy. New rooflights, replacement roof finishes, windows and associated internal and external alterations and landscaping works.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction of a first floor front extension, part single, part two storey rear extension with rear roof extension. Replacement rear dormer removing terrace and removal of side dormer. Demolition and replacement single storey side extension, garage conversion with new roof over and removal of rearmost non original chimney stack. Replacement matching front dormer, replacement of entrance porch with open roof canopy. New rooflights, replacement roof finishes, windows and associated internal and external alterations and landscaping works at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/3549/HD, and the plans submitted with it, 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: 500.P10 (D); 500.P311 (D); 500.P321 (D); 500.P331 (D); 500.P341 (D); 500.P351 (D); 500.P361 (D); 500.P401 (D); 500.P411 (D) and 500.P421 (D).

  2. Section 03

    [name]

    The description on the planning application form only refers to part of the proposal and therefore I have taken the comprehensive description from the Council’s decision notice which refers to all the works detailed on the submitted drawings.

  3. Section 04

    Background and Main Issue

    Planning permission was granted in 20251 for alterations to the property. The appeal now before me differs only in respect of proposed alterations to the front of the property to include removal of an existing front dormer in a cat slide roof above the garage and its replacement with new a brick and render bay extension with hipped roof over. The Council’s reason for refusal only relates to the proposed alterations to the front of the property. The Council’s officer report does not identify any conflict with development plan policy in respect of the other parts of the proposal, including the replacement of the entrance porch with an open roof canopy.

    Accordingly, the main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed alterations to the front of the property on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the Blackheath Park Conservation Area (CA).

  4. Section 05

    Reasons

    The CA is predominantly residential with properties located on spacious, tree-lined roads with soft verges. The properties vary in terms of age, design and proportions but this mix, together with their verdant surroundings result in a quiet, suburban quality with a sense of exclusivity. The CA gains significance from its architectural and historic interest.

    The appeal property is located on Brookway, which consists of a mix of semi-detached and detached dwellings set back from the road in spacious plots. Established planting to the front of the properties, mature street trees and grass verges give the area a verdant feel. The hipped roofs, bay windows and use of matching materials give this inter-war housing area a sense of coherence despite their being variation in the design of the properties. This makes a positive contribution to the significance of the CA.

    The existing property has a catslide roof with a dormer window over the garage, which is a common feature on some, but not all properties on Brookway. The appeal proposal would alter the appearance of the dwelling, and this would be contrary to the advice in the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document adopted October 2023.

    However, the first-floor extension would only extend across approximately one third of the existing front elevation and project forwards to a limited extent. The garage would project further forwards, but this would be single storey. The scale, design and siting of the proposed alterations would not detract from the key features of the existing property including the two-storey bay window to the front and its hipped roof. I saw that other properties in Brookway had a hipped roof at first floor level to the front, similar to the appeal proposal. Flat roof garages were also commonplace. As such the proposal would not appear as an uncharacteristic or unsympathetic addition. 1 [name]: 25/0509/[name] of a part single, part two storey rear extension with rear roof extension. Replacement rear dormer removing terrace and removal of side dormer. Demolition and replacement single storey side extension, garage conversion with new roof over and removal of rearmost non original chimney stack. Replacement matching front dormer, replacement of entrance porch with open roof canopy. New rooflights, replacement roof finishes, windows and associated internal and external alterations and landscaping works.

    The extensions which would incorporate materials and detailing found on the existing property and those elsewhere on Brookway. This coherent use of materials and details would preserve the significance of the CA.

    Therefore, with reference to the duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 regarding the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA, I conclude that the effect of the appeal proposal on the CA would be a neutral one. The proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA, and no conflict would arise with Policies D3 and HC1 of The London Plan adopted March 2021 and Policies DH1, DH3, DH(a) and DH(h) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name] adopted July 2014. These require that development, including residential extensions, responds appropriately to its context, conserves heritage assets and the historic environment.

  5. Section 06

    Other Matters

    Other applications2 at the appeal site and unspecified extensions approved elsewhere are not relevant to the proposal before me.

  6. Section 07

    Conditions

    In addition to the standard time condition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty. A condition relating to materials is not necessary as the planning application form confirms the use of matching materials.

  7. Section 08

    Conclusion

    The proposed development would accord with the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is 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 564No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    18 June 2026Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    2 June 2026 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
6006566
Application reference
25/3549/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
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
1,000 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
17 March 2026
Valid date
17 March 2026
Start date
20 March 2026
Planning authority decision date
23 February 2026
Appeal decision date
18 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
90633
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