Appeal 3271301
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
alterations and installation of replacement of patio doors.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The host building is a seven storey apartment building set in pleasant, landscaped surroundings. The part of the elevation of the building containing No 38 has three main sections separated by full height brick piers. Each apartment and section of the building is regular in width, all apartments have matching balcony detailing and fenestration of the same style, i.e. one double width window and wide patio doors with a single glazing bar between the panes. The fenestration pattern is handed on adjoining sections of the building. Due to the repetition of the glazing arrangement and consistency of detailing, this elevation of the building is particularly striking and conveys an architectural coherence that is typically difficult to retain in such flatted blocks.
The proposal is to upgrade the double patio doors to a triple pane bi-fold door.
From my site visit, it appeared that the designs of windows and patio doors were essentially the same and that if there were any differences in the frame thickness due to originals having been replaced, that such differences were generally imperceptible.
I note that permission has previously been granted for the replacement of the patio doors on other apartments (Nos 7 and 11) to bi-fold doors with four panes with an external middle mullion in white and two additional grey mullions, designed so as not to be noticeable.
The proposal differs from the design of the approved schemes at apartments 7 and 11 and would include two mullions. Even if they were designed to be grey or at least a recessive colour, the absence of a white mullion in a central position would be a noticeable change. Whilst such a detail would not be particularly apparent from wider public viewpoints, the composition of the elevation is still appreciable within its grounds and such changes would erode its quality, coherence and aesthetic appeal. As the balance and symmetry of the elevation makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the wider area, it should be maintained as such.
In view of the above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area, contrary to Policy CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: [name] 2012 which seeks to ensure that new developments enhance local character and distinctiveness.
Section 05
Other Matters
[name] note that there were no objections to the proposal from neighbouring occupiers or any other parties that have an interest in the building, this does not lead me to an alternative conclusion about the need to preserve the building’s positive attributes.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.
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 160No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 13 July 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 29 June 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3271301
- Application reference
- 7-2021-4407-AD
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
- Planning authority code
- E06000058
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- 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
- 18 March 2021
- Valid date
- 18 March 2021
- Start date
- 27 April 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 26 February 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 13 July 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
- 650
- 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
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25