Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

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 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

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.

  1. 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.

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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