Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3275990

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 works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

8 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 side/rear extension over existing ground floor side extension with pitched roof and four number rooflights.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor side/rear extension over existing ground floor side extension with pitched roof and four number rooflights at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 211199, dated 6 April 2021, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

  2. Section 03

    Application for Costs

    An application for costs was made by [name] against Wokingham Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

  3. Section 04

    Main Issue

    The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

  4. Section 05

    Reasons

    The host property is a semi-detached, two-storey house on a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [site address] . Its design is straightforward and typical of most houses in this residential estate which also have an ‘open plan’ front garden layout. The pairs of houses are arranged in generally well-spaced frontages, set back some distance from roads and, at junctions, further behind wide grass verges. Despite that a number of houses have been previously extended, including to the side at ground or also first floor level, there remains a broad homogeneity to the appearance and layout of these houses. There is also a tangible sense of spaciousness to this residential development. These characteristics are locally distinctive.

    The first floor side extension would overlay an existing flat roofed ground floor side extension. The design and materials would reflect the original form of the house, including a front-to-back sloping gable end roof at the same pitch and eaves level with a significantly lower ridge height. The front elevation would be deeply recessed behind the front of the house and it would not project beyond the rear elevation of the two-storey part of the house by an excessive distance. The width of the extension would be more than half that of the house, but significantly less than double and a smaller addition overall taking the semi-detached pair of houses together as a single block.

    Consequently, the proposal would not itself be excessive in size or scale and massing or disproportionate in relation to the house. Furthermore, this subservient addition would therefore be readily assimilated as part of the house without fundamentally changing its inherent semblance.

    Built form at first floor level and roof would be closer to the adjoining house at the rear and stepped further out at the side towards [address]. However, there would remain a substantial gap to this house, though the proposal would accentuate the staggered alignment of adjoining houses on the south side approach to the junction. Nonetheless, this effect would not be manifestly out of keeping given the curved part of this frontage which arcs forward of the appeal site further along [address]. Moreover, it would leave a significant gap to the appeal site boundary and to the facing houses on the opposite side of this road. It would also not intrude into any part of the wide grass verge at the junction.

    Consequently, the proposal would not appear cramped in relation to existing development or unduly prominent and, as a result, would not significantly erode openness at this corner of the junction. Furthermore, it would obscure the somewhat utilitarian existing side extension and, in this respect, have a positive visual effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

    Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would not be an incongruous or alien form of development. It would not cause harm to the character or appearance of the host property or the area, including as it would be observed in any of the short or longer public streetscene views from any direction. Accordingly, it would comply with the Council’s Core Strategy1 Policies CP1 and CP3. These policies include that development should maintain a high quality environment and be high quality in design. It should also be appropriate in scale, mass, layout, built-form, height and materials and in relation to the character of the area, including buildings and spaces. This would reflect section 4.11 and R23 of the Council’s Borough Design Guide2.

    It would also be consistent with objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) to achieve well-designed places. It would add to the overall quality of the area, be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment, and maintain a strong sense of place. This would be aligned with the first three ‘characteristics’ of well-designed places set out in the National Design Guide.

  5. Section 06

    Other Matters

    I have been referred to other residential extensions. Albeit located nearby, the circumstances of those sites and developments are not the same as in this appeal and some were considered in a different planning policy or guidance 1 Wokingham Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document, January 2010 2 Wokingham Borough Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, June 2012 context. They are not, therefore, comparable and I have, in any event, considered the proposal on its individual planning merits.

  6. Section 07

    Conditions

    The Council has suggested some conditions. I have considered these, and where necessary modified the wording in the interests of clarity, in light of the tests in Framework paragraph 56 and Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard time limit condition, conditions are necessary to specify the approved plans, to ensure certainty, and so that the development is carried out with external materials that match those used in the host property. Both of these conditions are in the interests of the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

  7. Section 08

    Conclusion

    For the reasons given above I conclude that, subject to conditions, the proposal is acceptable and therefore the appeal should succeed.

    The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • 2111 PL01 Location, block and site plan Existing • 2111 PL02 Ground floor plan • 2111 PL03 First floor plan • 2111 PL04 Roof plan • 2111 PL05 East elevation - front • 2111 PL06 North elevation – rear • 2111 PL07 South elevation - neighbours • 2111 PL08 West elevation – side [name] • 2111 PL09 3d sketches • 2111 PL10 3d floor plans Proposed • 2111 PL22 Ground floor plan • 2111 PL23 First floor plan • 2111 PL24 Roof plan • 2111 PL25 East elevation - front • 2111 PL26 North elevation – rear • 2111 PL27 South elevation - neighbours • 2111 PL28 West elevation – side [name] • 2111 PL29 3d sketches • 2111 PL30 3d floor plans

    The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

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 122No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    14 January 2022Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    13 December 2021 (page 1)
  • Costs Decision

    Extracted inspector · page 1
    Inspector attribution ID 122No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    14 January 2022Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    13 December 2021 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3275990
Application reference
211199
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Wokingham Borough Council
Planning authority code
E06000041

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
28 m²
Number of residences
1
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
27 May 2021
Valid date
27 May 2021
Start date
23 August 2021
Planning authority decision date
20 May 2021
Appeal decision date
14 January 2022

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
Yes
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
8876
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