020 8004 4464Discuss your project

PLANNING APPEALS

Appeals we have
worked on.

10 appeals submitted to the Planning Inspectorate across 7 London boroughs, where we acted as appeal agent, from new homes and conversions to listed building conditions and enforcement notices. Each entry gives the council's concerns, the main issue the Inspector identified and the decision.

Planning appeal support

2026

Appeal dismissedPlanning appeal (S78)

Single-storey house on part of a rear garden

Carlton Avenue / Denham Road, Feltham · London Borough of Hounslow

Application P/2025/1488 · Appeal APP/F5540/W/25/3374794 · Decided 5 January 2026

Council's concerns
The Council considered that the design and positioning of the house would be an incongruous and uncharacteristic addition to the street scene, contrary to Local Plan Policies CC1 and CC2.
Main issue
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the local area.
Inspector's decision
The Inspector found the wide bungalow on an awkwardly shaped plot would appear cramped and at odds with the established layout of houses with long rear gardens. The benefits of an additional home did not outweigh this harm.

We prepared the appeal statement of case.

Public record

2025

Appeal dismissedEnforcement appeal

Use of a terraced house as a small house in multiple occupation

Broad Lane, Tottenham · London Borough of Haringey

Application ENF/2023/0121 (enforcement notice; related application HGY/2021/0558) · Appeal APP/Y5420/C/23/3327034 · Decided 9 December 2025

Council's concerns
The enforcement notice alleged an unauthorised change of use from a family dwelling to a small house in multiple occupation and required that use to cease.
Main issue
Whether use of the property as a small house in multiple occupation is appropriate in this location, including in relation to small to medium sized family housing.
Inspector's decision
The Inspector found the house's original floor space was below the policy threshold for HMO conversion, so the use caused the loss of a small family home contrary to Policy DM17A. The notice was upheld with corrections, including a five-month compliance period.

We prepared the appeal statement of case.

Public record

Appeal dismissedPlanning appeal (S78)

Retention of a raised front boundary wall and trellis in a conservation area

Roxborough Park, Harrow · London Borough of Harrow

Application PL/0198/25 · Appeal APP/M5450/W/25/3367133 · Decided 18 September 2025

Main issue
The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, within the Roxborough Park and The Grove Conservation Area.
Inspector's decision
The Inspector found the tall brick wall and trellis to be a discordant, hard-edged addition in a street of low, green boundaries, causing less than substantial harm to the conservation area. The claimed crime-prevention benefits attracted limited weight and did not outweigh that harm.

We prepared the planning application and acted as agent on the appeal.

Public record

Appeal allowedPlanning appeal (S78)

Retention of two air-conditioning condenser units with acoustic screening

Hatton Garden, Holborn · London Borough of Camden

Application 2023/2445/P · Appeal APP/X5210/W/24/3353075 · Decided 2 April 2025

Council's concerns
The Council was concerned about noise from the units on nearby residents and considered the noise assessment should have addressed cumulative effects with existing plant.
Main issue
The effect of the development on the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular reference to noise and disturbance.
Inspector's decision
The Inspector accepted the acoustic report showing noise at the nearest window 10dB below night-time background levels with the louvred enclosure, and found no technical evidence that cumulative noise would worsen. Permission was granted with conditions on noise levels and operating hours (10am to 6pm weekdays).

We prepared the appeal statement of case.

Public record

2023

Appeal dismissedPlanning appeal (S78)

Replacement of a takeaway unit with a three-storey house

Morland Road, Addiscombe · London Borough of Croydon

Application 22/03463/FUL · Appeal APP/L5240/W/23/3320756 · Decided 16 November 2023

Council's concerns
The council's concerns were the lack of off-street parking and the treatment of refuse and cycle storage.
Main issue
The effect on highway safety and efficiency, and on the character of the area with regard to refuse and cycle storage.
Inspector's decision
The Inspector found the refuse and cycle storage acceptable, but concluded that a three-bedroom house with no parking in an area of high parking stress and PTAL 3 would harm highway safety, contrary to London Plan policy T6 and Croydon policies DM29 and DM30.

We prepared the appeal statement of case.

Read the case study · Public record

Appeal allowedPlanning appeal (S78)

Removal of a flush-rooflight condition for rear roof slope rooflights to a flat in a Grade II* listed building

Mansion House Drive, Stanmore · London Borough of Harrow

Application P/4665/21 · Appeal APP/M5450/W/22/3295874 · Decided 8 September 2023

Council's concerns
The council did not agree to remove the condition requiring the installed rooflights to be flush with the roofline, to protect the listed building and registered park and garden.
Main issue
Whether the flush-rooflight condition was necessary to preserve the Grade II* listed building and the Grade II registered park and garden.
Inspector's decision
The Inspector found the difference in projection between the installed and flush rooflights imperceptible, with a neutral effect on the listed building and registered park and garden. The condition failed the tests of necessity and was removed.

We acted as agent on the planning application and the appeal.

Public record

Appeal allowedPlanning appeal (S78)

Variation of a flush-rooflight condition for four replacement side roof slope rooflights to a flat in a Grade II* listed building

Mansion House Drive, Stanmore · London Borough of Harrow

Application P/4705/21 · Appeal APP/M5450/W/22/3296578 · Decided 8 September 2023

Council's concerns
The council did not agree to vary the condition requiring the four replacement rooflights to be flush with the roofline, to protect the listed building.
Main issue
Whether the flush-rooflight condition was necessary to preserve the Grade II* listed building and the Grade II registered park and garden.
Inspector's decision
The Inspector found the rooflights sat in largely the same positions as those they replaced, with no perceptible difference in protrusion and a neutral effect on the heritage assets. The condition was found unnecessary and permission granted without it.

We acted as agent on the appeal.

Public record

Appeal dismissedPlanning appeal (S78)

Four-storey building with ground-floor office and a 13-room HMO above, following demolition

Gilbert Street, Hounslow · London Borough of Hounslow

Application P/2022/2456 · Appeal APP/F5540/W/23/3315349 · Decided 22 June 2023

Council's concerns
The council's concerns were scale and character, loss of office space, neighbour amenity, amenity space for occupiers and cycle parking.
Main issue
The effect on the character of the area, loss of office space in a key office location, neighbours' and future occupiers' living conditions, and cycle parking.
Inspector's decision
The Inspector found the building too tall and bulky for its context and street hierarchy, and that net office loss lacked marketing and viability evidence. Harm to a neighbour's outlook, inadequate amenity space and cycle storage, and the absence of an HMO management plan also weighed against it.

We acted as agent on the planning application and the appeal.

Public record

2022

Appeal dismissedNon-determination appeal

Three-storey block of six flats on backland

Broadway Parade, Elm Park · London Borough of Havering

Application P1313.21 · Appeal APP/B5480/W/21/3288678 · Decided 9 December 2022

Council's concerns
The council did not decide the application, but said it would have objected on living conditions, excess car parking and prejudice to development of adjoining land.
Main issue
Whether the scheme would give acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, over-provide car parking, or prejudice development of adjoining land.
Inspector's decision
The Inspector found poor outlook and amenity space, likely parking and storage conflicts, excess parking and sterilisation of neighbouring land; these harms outweighed the benefit of six homes even with the tilted balance applied.

We acted as agent on the appeal.

Public record

Appeal dismissedPlanning appeal (S78)

Two-storey building with roof accommodation providing six flats

High Street, Cheam · London Borough of Sutton

Application DM2020/00947 · Appeal APP/P5870/W/21/3279426 · Decided 8 March 2022

Council's concerns
The council's concerns were its effect on local character and the conservation area setting, and its mix of dwelling sizes.
Main issue
The effect on the character and appearance of the area and the Cheam Village Conservation Area, and whether the dwelling mix was acceptable.
Inspector's decision
The Inspector found the backland building would appear cramped, isolated and visually intrusive, failing to preserve the conservation area setting, and that providing no three-bedroom homes conflicted with Sutton Local Plan policy 9. Access, parking, trees and neighbour amenity were found acceptable.

We acted as agent on the planning application and the appeal.

Public record

YOUR NEXT STEP

Planning an appeal? Talk to us.

Send us the decision notice and the drawings. We will tell you whether an appeal is likely to succeed, or whether a revised application is the better route.

Call 020 8004 4464 or email info@greencodeconsultants.com.

Make an enquiry