Appeal 3276726
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 first floor side extension, fenestration alterations and material alterations to existing house. New dropped kerb and driveway to be constructed to the front of the existing house.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for proposed first floor side extension, fenestration alterations and material alterations to existing house. New dropped kerb and driveway to be constructed to the front of the existing house, at [site address] , Haddenham [postcode] , in accordance with application Ref: 21/00561/APP, dated 10 February 2021 and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is occupied by a two-storey detached dwelling situated on a corner location. The building is faced in brickwork and cladding and presents its gable end as its principal elevation. The immediate surroundings primarily consist of detached dwellings of a similar scale with similar facing materials, however, the house types do differ in their specific architectural appearance. In addition, although gaps between buildings are prevalent, where they exist, they differ in scale. Due to the variation in the sizes of gaps between buildings and the differing architectural appearance of the buildings themselves, the existing street scape does not exhibit any particular uniformity or demonstrable architectural rhythm. Despite this, the consistency of scale and facing materials combine to generate a pleasing suburban environment to which the appeal site makes a positive contribution.
The proposal would introduce a first floor extension to the side of the existing dwelling. Accordingly, the extension would be located within an existing space between buildings. The Council confirm that the extension would be well proportioned and sympathetic to the host dwelling, a conclusion with which I entirely agree. However, their concerns manifest themselves in the loss of space between buildings.
In this regard, the extension would be substantially set back from the front of the property. In addition, the building itself is set demonstrably further back from the road than the neighbouring house. Accordingly, due to the proposed set back of the extension and the staggered building line of the existing houses, the increased bulk of the building would be considerably set back from the mass of the neighbouring property. As a consequence, an appreciable degree of space would be retained between the existing buildings, thereby having the effect of preserving a visual gap. Although the gap would be partially filled, due to the relationship between the two buildings, this would not be in a manner that would appear cramped within the street. Consequently, the proposal would be sympathetic to the composition of the existing street scape, and on this basis, it would cause no harm to the setting of the adjacent conservation area.
Accordingly, for the reasons identified above, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore comply with Policies GP9, GP35 and GP53 of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (2004), emerging Policies BE1 and BE2 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (2017), and guidance contained within the [name] on [name]. Taken together, these seek amongst other things, development which respects the appearance of the dwellings and its setting, and does not cause harm to the significance of heritage assets.
Section 05
Conditions and Conclusion
In light of my findings set out above, conditions are necessary in the interests of precision and clarity to establish the time limit for the commencement of development as well as to list the approved drawing numbers. Condition 3 is necessary to ensure a suitable finish for the proposed extension, and conditions 4 and 5 are necessary in the interests of highway safety.
Subject to these conditions, the appeal should be allowed.
Section 06
SCHEDULE OF 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 drawing numbers: 22; 21 C; 20 F;
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.
No other part of the development shall be occupied until the new means of access has been constructed in accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with the Buckinghamshire Council guide note “[name] the Public Highway”.
The scheme for parking and manoeuvring indicated on the submitted plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.
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 731No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 26 November 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3276726
- Application reference
- 21/00561/APP
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area *
- Planning authority code
- E07000004
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
- 11 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
- Yes
- 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
- 9 June 2021
- Valid date
- 9 June 2021
- Start date
- 3 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 29 April 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 26 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
- 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
- 6653
- 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