Appeal 3278537
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
first floor side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider that the main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a detached house located towards the end of a cul-de-sac. It is set back from the road in an elevated position with a substantial area of driveway to the front.
The house has been extended previously and the proposal would add a first floor above an attached double garage at the side of the house. No 16 sits within a fairly substantial plot and its width and the elevated position of the house mean it is fairly prominent despite its position within the cul-de-sac.
Local Plan Policy DE11 seeks to ensure that new development makes a positive contribution towards the quality of the built environment and amongst other things, requires a high quality of design that reflects the character and appearance of the area. The Council’s SPD for home improvements and extensions2 provides further advice regarding the impact of extensions to the host dwelling and the character of the area together with specific guidance for side extensions.
The existing garage extension is a substantial addition to the width of the house and although the first floor extension would line up with the eaves of the 1 Rushmoor Borough Council - Rushmoor Local Plan 2014-2031, [name] 2019. 2 Rushmoor Borough Council - Rushmoor Local Plan Home Improvements and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document February 2020 (SPD). existing house and incorporate a lower roof height, it would appear as a disproportionate addition to the appearance of the house. The roof design would appear at odds to the existing house and the single window and extent of surrounding brickwork would not reflect the proportions and overall appearance of the house. Its elevated position would emphasise further its prominence and poor design in relation to this house.
I note that the cul-de-sac incorporates different designed houses with most being closer to the road. I also appreciate that No 16 sits in a generous plot and physically has the space for an enlargement. However, I find that the design and the appearance of the proposal would be inconsistent with Policy DE1 and the SPD and conflict with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework3 in relation to high quality design.
I note that a previous proposal for this site was unsuccessful4 but I have limited information about it and it has not influenced my decision in any way. I have considered all other matters raised but none alter my conclusion. I conclude that the proposed extension would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area in conflict with Local Plan Policy DE1 and the [name]. The appeal therefore fails.
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 226No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 7 January 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 13 December 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3278537
- Application reference
- 21/00364/FULPP
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Rushmoor Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000092
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 7 July 2021
- Valid date
- 7 July 2021
- Start date
- 22 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 18 June 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 7 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
- 8537
- 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