Appeal 3270270
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
6 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
“Proposed second floor extension to form additional bedroom and en-suite”.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal building is a two-storey detached house located to the rear of a three storey terrace on [address], amongst other two storey residential buildings. Industrial buildings are located to the west and south of the appeal site, creating a mixed character. The appeal building can be seen from the industrial surroundings along [address] and in clear views from residential properties to the north and east.
The proposed second floor extension would create gable ends on the front and rear elevations, with parapets on the side elevations. Both side elevations would remain absent of any windows or detailing save for one high level window proposed on the north west side elevation. The proposal would create an oppressive building which would appear much taller than neighbouring detached buildings due to its narrow vertical emphasis. It would remain smaller than the terraces facing [address], but on account of its poor design and siting it would appear as a prominent and obtrusive block, out of scale with, and unsympathetic to, neighbouring properties. Even in the context of its mixed surroundings, it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.
The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies OSS4 and EN3 of the Council’s Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) and Policies DHG9 and DEN1 of the Council’s Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (2019). These require, amongst other things, new development to be of high quality design which makes a positive contribution to the character of the site and surroundings.
Section 05
Other Matters
The appellant has claimed that the proposed development could be carried out without planning permission. I have not been provided with any evidence, such as a certificate of lawfulness, confirming the extent of any lawful upward extension that could be carried out to the appeal building, which may act as a fallback position. I therefore apply little weight to this argument, which does not outweigh the significant harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the area by the proposal.
Section 06
Conclusion
The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area in conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 93No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 5 August 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 3 August 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3270270
- Application reference
- RR/2020/2165/P
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Rother District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000064
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Unknown
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 4 March 2021
- Valid date
- 17 March 2021
- Start date
- 18 May 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 18 January 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 5 August 2021
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 1436
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21