Appeal 3279739
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
8 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
single storey rear extension and replacement of door with patio doors.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension and replacement of door with patio doors at [site address] , [site address] , [address], [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application ref 21/00445/FUL dated 4 March 2021 subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 181393-PL01 [name], 181393-PL02 [name], 181393-PL03 [name], 181393-PL04 [name], 181393-PL05 [name].
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
The revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 20 July 2021 and I have had regard to it in reaching my decision.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.
Section 05
Reasons
[site address] is a detached dwelling that comprises part of a former agricultural complex altered and converted into four residential dwellings. The complex has a common architectural theme with the main buildings being of modest height with a strong linear form and a consistent palette of materials. There are variations in the elevational treatment of each dwelling reflecting the historic openings prior to the conversion of the buildings.
The principal elevation of the appeal property faces into a courtyard with the rear elevation facing towards a large rear garden with ancillary garden building overlooking open countryside. The linear form of the dwelling with attractive projecting brick eaves detail is visible from the adjacent access route, footpath, and bridleway on the approach to the site. Despite the location of the outbuilding within the rear garden and the introduction of planting to the site boundaries, the form of the original agricultural building remains apparent.
Nevertheless, the proposed extension is designed as a simple lean-to structure with a limited depth and would be constructed in matching materials. The extension would be set down from the eaves line, maintaining the projecting brick eaves detail and roof shape, and would be set in from the side elevations, allowing the depth and form of the original barn structure to be distinguished. The proposed window openings on the south east elevation would not be conspicuous in the wider landscape and despite their size and coherent appearance would not detract from the wider informal arrangement of windows characteristic of the original barn conversion scheme.
I appreciate that the diamond pattern of brick work on the main outer wall would be lost, but the property and the brick feature have no specific designation and my attention has not been drawn to the feature having any local significance. In addition, the diamond pattern has limited visibility in its context and its loss would not be detrimental to the former agricultural complex as a whole.
The Council considers that the proposed widening of the existing door opening on the east elevation would not materially harm the appearance of the barn and I see no reason to disagree.
Consequently, the proposed development would not detract from the character and appearance of the host property or the area and would accord with Policies GD3 and GD8 of the Harborough Local Plan 2011 to 2031 adopted 30 April 2019, where these policies seek to ensure that minor extensions are subordinate in scale and appearance to the existing building and are sympathetic to local vernacular. The development would also accord with the Supplementary Guidance note 8 where it says that extensions should be small, simple and follow the building’s traditional form.
The Framework seeks to ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history and maintain a strong sense of place, and the National Design Guide ([name]) promotes well-designed development that responds positively to the features of the site and its surroundings. I am satisfied that the proposal would be consistent with the approach set out in the Framework and the [name].
Section 06
Other Matters
An appeal decision in respect of the garden building at the appeal property has been brought to my attention1. I agree with the Council that the proposed extension is to be considered against different policies. Therefore, whilst I have 1 Appeal ref APP/F2415/D/20/3253235 had regard to the comments of the Inspector in terms of the overall appearance of the building group, I have determined the proposed development on its own merits.
Section 07
Conditions
In addition to the standard time limit condition, in the interests of clarity, a condition is necessary to ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. To achieve a satisfactory appearance, it is necessary to attach a condition to ensure that the materials used match the existing property.
Section 08
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, and having regard to the evidence before me, I conclude that the proposal would accord with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.
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 435No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 21 December 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 December 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3279739
- Application reference
- 21/00445/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Harborough District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000131
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
- 36 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 26 July 2021
- Valid date
- 26 July 2021
- Start date
- 11 October 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 May 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 21 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
- 8018
- 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