Appeal 3273154
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
10 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
a first floor extension to garage and car port.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor extension to garage and car port at The Glade, [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/20/01503/F, dated 18 December 2020, subject to the following
Section 03
conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1596P/100c, 1596P/101, 1596P/103e and 1596P/104d.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be as specified in the application form.
All works relating to the ground clearance, tree works, demolition and development with implications for trees shall be carried out as specified in the approved arboricultural method statement and shall be supervised by an arboricultural consultant holding a nationally recognised arboricultural qualification.
Section 04
Appeal Procedure
The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.
Section 05
Procedural Matters
Approval has previously been given for the proposed car port as part of a separate application. It is understood that the Council’s substantive concerns relate to the proposed first floor extension and not the remainder of the proposal, and I see no reason to disagree. As such, the focus of the main issue is in respect to the first floor extension.
Section 06
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed first floor extension on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the likely future impact on surrounding trees.
Section 07
Reasons for the Recommendation
The appeal site is a large, detached house that has a detached, double garage with a hipped-roof to its north. There are a number of well-established trees that are in close proximity to the garage building including a [name] and an Oak tree, referred to by the parties as T1 and T2 respectively. The surrounding area is predominantly comprised of other large, detached dwellings in generously-sized plots. The local character is spacious, verdant and benefits from numerous mature trees that are subject to an Area Tree Preservation Order.
The proposed first floor extension would maintain the footprint of the existing garage building but would increase its scale through adding height and bulk at roof level. The proposed extension would incorporate a gable roof and windows in each elevation, including two small dormer windows on the east facing roof slope. As a result, there would be a modest increase in the proposed roof’s proximity to the canopies of the surrounding trees.
Despite the close proximity of T1 and T2 to the garage, there is no evidence to suggest that the construction of the proposed first floor extension would lead to direct harm to the trees, rather it has been put forward that its construction would likely lead to the future pruning or removal of T1 and T2. The increased scale of the proposed extension would result in a moderate increase in the building’s height of approximately 1.2 metres, however this would not significantly affect the amount of detritus falling on the roof slopes. Moreover, the proposed extension would maintain the existing footprint of the garage which would limit the overall increase in roof area under the canopies of the nearby trees. Therefore, the proposed scale of the first floor extension would respond suitably to the natural features of the surrounding environment.
The proposed roof form of the first floor extension would add a modest degree of complication at roof level with the dormers. However, its design would not cause a significant increase in the amount of detritus that would accumulate on the roof slopes. Furthermore, any necessary clearing of detritus could be undertaken without direct harm to the surrounding trees. As such, it is not considered likely that the proposal would result in an increased future pressure to prune or remove T1 or T2. Due to the limited effect on the surrounding trees, the proposal would be acceptable with regard to its impact on the local climate.
Given the above, the proposed first floor extension would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the likely future impact on surrounding trees. It therefore accords with Policy PP27 of the Poole Local Plan, adopted November 2018, which seeks to ensure development responds to natural features on the site and does not result in the loss of trees that make a significant contribution to the character and local climate of an area.
Section 08
Conditions
In addition to the standard time period for commencement and requiring that development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, which is necessary for certainty, I recommend that the external materials match those specified in the application form to preserve the character and appearance of the area.
I also recommend a condition to ensure that the works are carried out in accordance with the submitted arboricultural method statement under the supervision of an arboricultural consultant. This is necessary to protect the trees in the surrounding vicinity of the construction works and ensure that any works to the trees do not result in their harm.
As the proposal was submitted as part of a householder application for development within the curtilage of the dwelling, the use of the building for any other purpose beyond this scope would not be permitted by a planning permission granted by this appeal decision. As such, a condition to ensure the development is used solely for purposes incidental to the domestic use of the main dwelling is not considered necessary.
Section 09
Conclusion and Recommendation
The proposed development would accord with the development plan, when considered as a whole. Based on the above, and having regard to all matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.
Section 10
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.
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 859No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 5 July 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 June 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3273154
- Application reference
- APP/20/01503/F
- 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
- 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
- 69 m²
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 15 April 2021
- Valid date
- 15 April 2021
- Start date
- 13 May 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 March 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 5 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
- 242
- 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