Appeal 3275545
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
4 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
extension that will bring it back to the building line of the road. Front door/porch will change to be in a new open planned room to the front.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
I consider the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on the character and setting of the host dwelling and the character and context of the existing streetscene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property lies within a primarily residential area characterised by a mix of styles of predominately detached two-storey, chalet bungalows and bungalows. Large forward extensions on chalet bungalows are not a characteristic of the streetscene. The appeal property is a detached chalet bungalow adjacent to a recently constructed two-storey dwelling with a front two-storey projection. The appeal dwelling is set back within the streetscene behind a loose building line of adjacent properties. The set back provides a somewhat spacious setting for the dwelling.
The proposal is for a forward projection comprising a single-storey extension with a front gable. Whilst it would be lower than the existing ridge line, it would add an extension of significant bulk to the property which would not integrate successfully with the modest design of the existing dwelling. As such, it would be a dominant addition in a prominent front garden location. The bulk of the proposed front projection would create a cramped form of development on this site. From my observations, due to the scale and design of the proposal in such a position, it would overwhelm the setting and character of the existing dwelling. It would appear as an incongruous addition, not in keeping with the design and scale of this modest bungalow. In such a prominent position, this would be to the detriment of the character and context of the existing streetscene.
In reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to all matters raised including the design of the adjacent recently constructed dwelling. Whilst that dwelling has a forward projection, the design and scale of that projection is integral to the overall design of the dwelling.
For the reasons stated above, I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and setting of the host dwelling and the character and context of the existing streetscene. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to Policy UR2 in the Colchester Borough Council Core Strategy (2008) (revised 2014) and Policy DP1 in the Colchester Borough Council Development Policies (2010) (revised 2014), where they seek high quality design.
Since the Council made its decision, the National Planning Policy Framework has been revised. It continues to seek high standards of design. I consider the development plan policies referred to above to be broadly consistent with the Framework, especially where the Framework seeks to ensure good design.
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 1172No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 8 November 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 2 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3275545
- Application reference
- 210730
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Colchester Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000071
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
- 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
- 35 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 21 May 2021
- Valid date
- 1 June 2021
- Start date
- 13 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 May 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 8 November 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
- No
- 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
- 5711
- 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