London Borough of Merton appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Merton?
See which extensions and roof changes inspectors found harmful, and how an allowed side extension was assessed.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 69 of 101
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 25
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 44
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 64
- of 69 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Merton LPA (51.409949, −0.197231). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Merton appeal findings
Merton inspectors on extensions and roof changes
Each selected extract is a final conclusion, not the detailed design analysis behind it.
Counted against appeals
Merton extensions and roof changes found harmful
Upward extension harmed the area
The inspector concluded that the upward extension would harm the character and appearance of the area.
Roof alterations harmed property and street
The inspector concluded that the proposal, including loft and roof alterations, would harm the host property and wider street scene.
Side extension and mansard roof were harmful
The inspectors concluded that the two-storey side extension and mansard roof conversion would harm the area's character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Existing extensions in the allowed Merton appeal
Existing and approved extensions mattered
The inspector concluded that the double-storey side extension was consistent with the area's character and appearance when assessed alongside existing and approved extensions.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm to the host property, street scene or area?
- Does it explain how your roof form, scale, bulk or proportions cause harm?
- Does it compare your proposal with existing or approved extensions?
The displayed Merton examples cover extensions and roof alterations only. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
4 April 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a double storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all of these matters together, I consider that within the context of the existing and approved extensions, the proposal would be entirely consistent with the character and appearance of the area and there would be no conflict with the policies set out by the Council.
Paragraph 2,024 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
18 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a single storey upward extension, first and loft floor side window.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy D3 in the London Plan (adopted 2 March 2021) and Policies D12.1, D12.2, D12.3 and D12.4 in the Merton Local Plan (adopted 20 November 2024). These policies seek to ensure that appropriately designed development (including building alterations and extensions) which relates appropriately to the street scene and character of the local area is achieved.
Paragraph 7 · Source pages 1, 2
6 September 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
loft conversion, roof alterations to the main roof and the roof over the recently approved side extension including installation of one roof light to the front slope.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the building and area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I consider that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host property and wider street scene and as such the proposal would conflict with Policy D3 of the LP, Policy CS14 of the London Borough of Merton LDF Core Planning Strategy (2011) and Policies DMD2 and DMD3 of [name] and Policies Plan and [name] (2014) which require development to reinforce and enhance the local character of the area and ensure that roof forms respect the characteristics of the area.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
10 November 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a two-storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would conflict with the high quality design, character and local context requirements of Policy D3 (Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach) of the London Plan (2021), Policy CS 14 (Design) of the London Borough of Merton LDF Core Planning Strategy (2011) and [name] D2 (Design considerations in all developments) & DM D3 (Alterations and extensions to existing buildings) of the [name] and Policies Plan (2014)
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
14 June 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for conversion of roof from single pitched to mansard.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the area and would be contrary to Policy D4 of the London Plan 2021, Policy CS14 of the Merton Core Planning Strategy (2011) and [name] D2, DM D3 and DM D4 of the [name] and Policies Plan (2014) with together seek to deliver good design in order to respect, reinforce and enhance the local character of the area in which it is located; use appropriate architectural forms which complement and enhance the character of the wider setting, whilst also respecting and complementing the design and detailing of the original building along with its form, scale, bulk and proportions whilst conserving the setting of heritage assets.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2