Appeal 3277937
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
small single storey extension to existing building with a balcony on top. Technically it is to the front of the house. Dormer to be added to roof to allow access on to [name] from second floor.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
[site address] is an historic barn now converted to a dwelling within an agrarian landscape, accessed from [address] to the north. When the building was converted, a sizeable perpendicular extension was added at its south east end, with a small porch constructed in the right angle. This markedly changed the scale and plan form of the barn. However, the effect of these enlargements has been well mitigated through design, with the extension and porch earnestly adopting the simple, agricultural typology of the original building.
Whilst the extension would be off this newer part of [site address] , the building is read as a whole. Legibility of its historic plan would again be reduced, with the extension cutting further across an original elevation. With a dormer breaking the eaves, the use of render, and a flat roof with a balcony enclosed by railings, an overt and incongruous domesticity would be introduced to the once farm building which has thus far been avoided. This would be particularly pronounced given the prominence of the affected elevation from [address].
I recognise that when an extension is to be added to an historic barn, a contrasting design can sometimes be the most respectful response. However, given the harm I have identified, this would not be achieved in this case.
Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with the design aims of Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 (adopted 2015) and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Section 05
Other Matters
The appellant has referred to Permitted Development Rights for extensions and barn conversions. However, these rights do not apply at [site address] . Indeed, I understand that householder Permitted Development Rights were removed when permission was granted in order to protect the clear agricultural heritage of the building. The existence of these rights elsewhere does not therefore serve to justify the harm that would arise at [site address] .
[name] acknowledge the delays experienced by the appellant during the planning process, the procedural conduct of the Council is not relevant to my assessment, which is focused on the planning merits of the proposal. The absence of any objection from third parties and Closworth Parish Council and the absence of harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupants are also neutral factors in the balance.
Section 06
Planning Balance and Conclusion
Consequently, the scheme would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh the conflict.
For the reasons outlined above, and taking all other matters raised into account, I conclude that the appeal should be 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 255No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 9 December 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 30 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3277937
- Application reference
- 21/00955/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- South Somerset District Council *
- Planning authority code
- E07000189
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
- 20 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- Yes
- 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
- 28 June 2021
- Valid date
- 28 June 2021
- Start date
- 2 November 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 27 May 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 9 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
- 7329
- 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