Appeal 3279557
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
a loft conversion with front and rear dormer extensions
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 semi-detached pair of bungalows and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property forms one half of a symmetrically arranged pair of bungalows with a pitched roof. It is situated in a residential area and forms part of a group of semi-detached bungalows in this portion of [address] that, with only a few exceptions, retain their original roof forms at the front. I note that in nearby streets there are semi-detached bungalows with prominent dormers in their front roof slopes. Whilst front dormers have become part of the established character of neighbouring streets, they do not however form part of the visual context of the appeal property.
The proposal would comprise the formation of an almost full-width dormer within the rear roof slope and a slightly narrower one within the front slope. These additions would severely disrupt the symmetrical arrangement of the pair of bungalows. The front dormer would be at odds with the front roof slopes on neighbouring properties and would be an incongruous and overly dominant element in the street scene.
Due to its siting and size, the front dormer would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the semi-detached pair of bungalows and the surrounding area. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy EC2 of the Castle Point Borough Council Local Plan (1998) which seeks a high standard of design and stipulates that the scale and siting of development should be appropriate to its setting and not harm the character of its surroundings. There is also conflict with Policy RDG7 of the Council's Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2013), which states that proposals for any form of roof development which results in the detrimental disruption or loss of symmetry to a pair or group of dwellings will be refused.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.
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 246No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 1 November 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 October 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3279557
- Application reference
- 21/0473/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Castle Point Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000069
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
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- No
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 23 July 2021
- Valid date
- 23 July 2021
- Start date
- 29 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 13 July 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 1 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
- 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
- 5395
- 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