Appeal 3277046
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
the erection of a rear dormer roof extension (incorporating Juliet balconies).
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal dwelling is a semi-detached bungalow in [name], a cul-de-sac estate of buildings with essentially the same design and external materials. The appeal proposal is a roof extension in the form of a flat roofed dormer at the rear of the property.
The dormer would be set in only a modest distance from the sides of the roof slope and extend right up to the existing ridge and positioned only a minimal distance from the eaves. With these dimensions, in particularly its proximity to the ridge and eaves, the dormer would be disproportionately large for the roof plane and result in a top heavy appearance for the rear elevation. Nor would the fenestration, including the size and siting of the openings, read comfortably with the ground floor element of the rear elevation.
Accordingly, I consider the proposal to be of a poor design that would be unsympathetic to the existing scale and appearance of the host dwelling. As such, it would be in harmful conflict with Policy D1 (1) & (4) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2019 and the saved [name] in Policy G5 of the Borough’s 2003 Local Plan. The appeal scheme would also be contrary to Government policy in Section 12: ‘[name] of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.
I acknowledge that No. 27 is in a corner position and with the proposed dormer on the rear elevation it would unlikely to be seen from the public realm and only to a limited extent from the gardens of adjoining neighbouring properties.
However, this does not offset the harm caused to the building itself. Moreover, if I were to allow the appeal it would undermine the distinctive character of [name] which derives from its design integrity and the consistency of appearance of the buildings. It would also make it difficult for the Council, in all fairness, to resist similar proposals that would incrementally erode the environmental quality of [name].
I have taken account of the points raised in the grounds of appeal but nothing that I have read or seen at my visit is of sufficient weight to alter my conclusion that I should dismiss the appeal. Reference has been made to the extension at No. 17, but the view of that dormer’s flank, although limited, is one of a jarring feature in the street scene. Nor does it persuade me that the addition of a large dormer to a low profile building as exemplified in the appeal proposal would be a positive contribution to the character and appearance of [name].
For the reasons explained above the appeal is dismissed.
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 204No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 November 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 October 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3277046
- Application reference
- 21/P/00695
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Guildford Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000209
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
- 30 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
- 14 June 2021
- Valid date
- 14 June 2021
- Start date
- 14 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 May 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 18 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
- 6239
- 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