Appeal 3278168
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
5 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
for a hip to gable, front dormers, rear roof extension and ground floor rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
This part of Gorringe Valley Road is a primarily residential area broadly characterised by detached and semi-detached single storey dwellings, some of which have accommodation in the roof space. The appeal property, one half of a semi-detached pair of bungalows, fronts onto Gorringe Valley Road with a vehicular and pedestrian access running parallel to its side boundary which gives access to [name] located to the rear of the appeal site.
A number of neighbouring properties have dormer windows to the rear and these are of varying sizes, designs and levels of separation from public viewpoints. Given its proximity, the existing rear roof plane of the appeal property is particularly prominent from the access road to the cemetery as well as from within the cemetery itself.
The Wealden Design Guide (WDG) explains that dormer windows should not dominate the roofscape, should be smaller than windows on the same elevation and kept low on the roof, well below the ridge line1. The rear dormer as proposed would extend across much of the width and height of the existing roof plane and would have a flat roof. It would occupy a substantial portion of the roof by reason of its size, prominent location and design appearing dominant and at odds with the host dwelling and surrounding area. 1 Chapter 5, Part 10, Para 10.6
While my attention was drawn to other large rear dormers in the immediate area, they are generally less prominent or smaller than the appeal proposal. In some instances where the dormers are large, those dormer windows are to properties with less spacing between properties than is evident in this appeal. Accordingly, the proposed development would be visually discordant with the existing character and appearance of the area.
The appellant suggests a similar rear dormer window could be erected under permitted development rights. However, I have not been provided with any evidence that this would be likely to take place. Consequently, I am unconvinced that this represents a realistic fallback position.
The proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find conflict with Policies HG10 and EN27 of the Wealden Local Plan (1998), Policies SPO13 and WCS14 of the Core Strategy Local Plan (2013), guidance set out in the [name] (2008) and chapter 12 of the Framework all of which seek to ensure high quality design which does not harm the character or appearance of the locality.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the above reasons, having regard to the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework and all other relevant considerations, 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 1630No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 January 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 5 January 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3278168
- Application reference
- WD/2020/2493/F
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Wealden District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000065
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
- 65 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
- 1 July 2021
- Valid date
- 1 July 2021
- Start date
- 21 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 26 April 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 18 January 2022
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
- No
- 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
- 9014
- 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