London Borough of Newham appeal evidence
Refused over area character in Newham?
See what the selected examples say harmed Newham’s character and the allowed example’s conclusion.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 67 of 91
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 24
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 42
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 63
- of 68 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: Newham LPA (51.52689, 0.037561). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Newham appeal findings
Porches and roof extensions in Newham terraces
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and several provide only conclusions rather than the earlier analysis.
Counted against appeals
Porches and dormers harming Newham character
A porch wider than its terrace
A front porch significantly wider than others in the terrace was found conspicuously out of keeping.
Rear dormer over an outrigger
The rear dormer roof extension over a rear outrigger was concluded to harm the area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Loft and rear extension: no character harm
No harm found to area character
For the loft conversion and rear extension, the Inspector concluded the scheme would not harm the area’s character and appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say your porch is wider than nearby terrace porches?
- Does it identify a rear dormer over an outrigger as harmful?
- Does it explain why any nearby extension is not comparable?
The only displayed allowed Newham example gives a conclusion, not the design analysis behind it. 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
8 October 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘loft conversion with dormer and single- storey rear extension’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The scheme would not therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would thus meet the requirements of Policies D1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies S1, SP1, SP3 and SP8 of the LP which are concerned with integrating development into its surroundings amongst other things.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
15 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
planning application for retention of front porch.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the development would erode the distinctive character and appearance of the area and would be contrary to the relevant provisions of The London Plan (2021) Policy D3, London Borough of Newham Local Plan (2018) Policies SP1 and SP3, which require designs to respond positively to local character and distinctiveness, and with paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure development is sympathetic to local character. It would also conflict with the recommendations in the London Borough of [name] and Extending Your Home Supplementary Planning Document (2018).
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
19 July 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as: L-shaped loft conversion with mansard roof extension to create additional bedroom.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the appeal development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude the proposed rear dormer roof extension over the rear outrigger would harm the character and appearance of the area. So it would not comply with Policies SP1 and SP3 of the London Borough of Newham Local Plan 2018 (the Local Plan), the Altering and Extending Your Home Supplementary Planning Document, February 2018 or the design policies of the National Planning Policy Framework in this regard.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
6 January 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
first floor addition and rear dormer to second floor new entrance porch.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed front porch would be significantly wider than others within the terrace. I accept that it would be smaller and less obtrusive than the extension projecting from the front of the house opposite. However, the appellant has described that development as a converted garage which would suggest it was not a new structure, or an extension to an existing one as would be the case with the proposal. Also, the house is a different design to its adjoining neighbours, whereas the appeal site reflects the design of other houses within the terrace such that the proposal would be conspicuously out of keeping. Furthermore, the porch roof would be attached to the first floor extension which is an element of the proposal that I have determined would be unacceptable. 10.Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host property and area and would therefore conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policies D1, D3, D4 and D8 of The London Plan (2021) and Policies SP1 and SP3 of the Newham Local Plan 2018 which require high quality development which responds to local distinctiveness and contributes to a vibrant public realm. Policy S6 referred to in the Council’s decision relates to the Plan’s overarching strategic aims and spatial strategy and is not relevant to the proposal.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
9 September 2025 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
a double loft conversion including a roof terrace over the rear addition, front-facing dormer, single-storey rear extension with a pitched roof, and outbuilding with a pitched roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to London Plan (2021) Policy D3; and to Newham Local Plan (2018) Policies SP1 and SP3, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3