This was a straightforward householder extension that should never have been refused.
The house sat on an awkwardly shaped plot at the end of a cul-de-sac, facing a turning circle. When the owner decided to extend, his architect sensibly designed the extension to match what had already been built by neighbouring houses.
The surrounding extensions were not especially elegant, but that misses the point. From a planning perspective, what matters is whether a proposal fits in with what is already there. In this case, it clearly did.
Croydon refused the application anyway. The reason was simple: the proposed two-storey side extension did not meet the letter of their guidance for this type of development.
That is not how the planning system is supposed to work.
Planning guidance is just that — guidance. It is not a set of rules that must be followed regardless of context. Where there are good planning reasons to depart from it, decision-makers are expected to exercise judgement.
Here, that judgement was missing. The refusal ignored the fact that very similar extensions already existed in the cul-de-sac and that the site itself was unusual. Planning is not a box-ticking exercise. It requires looking at the site, the neighbours and the street as it actually exists.
We appealed the decision, and the inspector agreed. They accepted that the extension reflected the established pattern of development and would not cause any planning harm.
The appeal was allowed.
This kind of refusal is depressingly common. Councils often fall back on guidance without properly asking whether it makes sense on a particular site. Although this was an appeal in the London Borough of Croydon, the same issue crops up again and again elsewhere.
If your extension has been refused because it does not tick every box in a guidance document, it may well be worth appealing. We deal with these cases regularly as part of our planning appeals work in Croydon.
