London Borough of Southwark appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Southwark?
Learn what inspectors found harmful and when roof changes were not harmful.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 41 of 62
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 15
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 26
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 29
- of 41 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: Southwark LPA (51.47424, −0.074031). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Southwark appeal findings
Southwark extensions and roof changes in street views
Some of the selected examples give only an overall conclusion, so they do not show every design detail considered.
Counted against appeals
Loft height and bulk in a terrace
Height and bulk drew the eye
A loft conversion was visually prominent from street level and incongruous along an otherwise uninterrupted terrace.
Extension and loft proposal found harmful
The Inspector concluded that this extension and loft proposal would substantially harm the dwelling and local area.
Freestanding unit's harm carried substantial weight
The Inspector concluded that this freestanding unit would unacceptably harm the area's character and appearance.
Helped or needed
When Southwark roof changes were not harmful
Above-ridge extension did not harm its terrace
Despite rising above the main roof ridge, it was not materially harmful to the terrace or wider street scene in that case.
Mansard proposal found not harmful
The Inspector concluded that the mansard extension would not harm the area's character and appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify height, bulk or street-level visibility?
- Does it explain how your roof change affects the terrace line?
- Does it give reasons for harm, rather than only an overall conclusion?
The freestanding-unit dismissal may not compare closely with the selected allowed roof-extension examples. 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
2 examples
11 November 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
raised ridge rear dormer loft conversion with velux windows to front roof slope.
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
Therefore, even though, the roof extension would be above the height of the ridge of the main roof of the host dwelling and so would not follow the guidance in the ‘2015 Update to the [name] (2011) Supplementary Planning Document’, this would not be materially harmful to the character and appearance of the terrace or the wider street scene in this particular instance.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
16 January 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
construction of a mansard roof extension, floor plan redesign and all associated works.
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 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It is in accordance with Policies P13 and P14 of The Southwark Plan 2019-2036 (February 2022) and Policy D4 of the London Plan (March 2021). These policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure development is of a high standard of design, and responds positively to the existing townscape, character and context.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
8 March 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a part one/part two storey side and rear extension with loft conversion incorporating hip to gable roof enlargement and rear dormer addition.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and that of the local area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, the proposal would result in substantial harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and that of the local area. This would not accord with the design advice set out in the Residential Design Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2011) 2015 [name] and would conflict with Policies P13, P14 of the Southwark Plan 2019-2036 (2022), Policy D3 of the London Plan and Paragraph 135 of the Framework. These collectively seek development, including extensions, that are of high quality design, take site context into consideration and integrate with their local area.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
6 September 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
new loft conversion.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host property and the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Notwithstanding the parapet the proposed development on account of its height, bulk and appearance would be visually prominent from street level drawing the eye and appearing as an incongruous feature along the otherwise uninterrupted terrace. Consequently, it would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the area.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
13 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the installation of a freestanding [name] 3 unit.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Concluding on this main issue overall, the proposed [name] would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area, and I give this harm substantial weight. In relation to Appeal A, and as far as it is a material consideration for Appeal B, it would therefore conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy P13 of the Southwark Plan and Policy D8 of the London Plan 2021. These, amongst other things, look to ensure that development responds to the local urban context and integrates sympathetically with the public realm.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3