Appeal 3277036
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 erection of 3-bay garage including rear dormer and rooflight to accommodate ancillary accommodation within the roof space accessed by external timber stair.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the proposed erection of 3-bay garage including rear dormer and rooflight to accommodate ancillary accommodation within the roof space accessed by external timber stair, at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of application Ref: 21/00438/HOUSE, 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 large, detached dwelling that is substantially set back from the road. The generous space to the front of the property hosts mature trees and landscaping, and as a consequence, the appeal site benefits from a spacious and verdant quality. The surrounding environment consists of houses set in space but there is no strong building line and dwellings differ in their architectural appearance. Due to the varied building line, it is not uncommon to see buildings close to the narrow highway, however, the spacious and verdant nature of the surrounding area is the prevailing characteristic.
The proposal would introduce a large outbuilding towards the front of the site. It would have a pitched roof and externally, it would be faced in plain clay tiles and feather edged weather boarding. The roof slope facing the principal house would also contain a modest, lead-faced dormer window. Due to its form and scale, the structure would take a vernacular appearance and although this would contrast somewhat with the appearance of the existing dwelling, it would be entirely consistent with much of the surrounding architecture. Moreover, the proposed location of the building would be experienced as part of the varied building line established by the existing buildings. Of significance, the proposal would also benefit from space about it and as a consequence, in my judgement it would be suitably sympathetic and complementary to the spacious and verdant surroundings.
Accordingly, due to the space about the proposed outbuilding, the retention of established landscaping, and the varied layout of existing buildings, the proposal would not result in an overly dominant structure within the street scene. On this basis, it would also not cause any harm to the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Consequently, for the reasons identified above, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore comply with Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS14 and CS18 of the [name], Development Plan Document (2012) as well as guidance contained within the House Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance (2004) and the [name] (Part 2) Supplementary Planning Document (2006). Taken together, these seek amongst other things, high quality, sustainable design that respects and enhances the character and appearance of the area.
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 commencing development and to list the approved drawing numbers. In addition, condition 3 is necessary to ensure that the proposal fully respects the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Condition 4 is necessary to ensure suitable protection for trees. I note that the Council recommended an additional condition regarding arboricultural supervision, however, due to the location of the proposed building and its relationship with the identified root protection areas, in my judgement, this additional condition is not necessary. Finally, condition 5 is necessary to ensure that the use of the building remains ancillary to the principal dwelling.
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 implemented strictly in accordance with following drawing numbers: 19135-L1-A; 19135-P10; 19135-P11; 19135-P12; and 19135-P13
The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be as specified on the plans and the application form. Where stated that materials shall match the existing, those materials shall match those on the existing development in colour, size and texture.
Protective fencing and ground protection measures shall be implemented and retained intact for the duration of the development in accordance with the tree and landscape protection scheme identified on Venners Arboriculture Tree Protection Plan at Appendix 4 of the Arboricultural Impact Assessment dated February 2021. Within the [name] area(s), there shall be no excavations, storage or mixing of materials or machinery, parking of vehicles or fires.
The garage and first floor accommodation hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary and/or incidental to the residential use of the dwelling known as [site address] .
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
- 3 December 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3277036
- Application reference
- 21/00438/HOUSE
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- West Berkshire District Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000037
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
- 80 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
- 14 June 2021
- Valid date
- 14 June 2021
- Start date
- 4 October 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 April 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 3 December 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
- 7049
- 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