Appeal 3281100
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
the construction of a conservatory to the rear elevation of the annexe.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a conservatory to the rear elevation of the annexe at The Annexe, [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref S21/0888, dated 5 May 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: WIL 21/04-001; WIL 21/04-002 & WIL 21/04-003 [name].
The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in materials that match the existing materials of the annexe.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the works would undermine the ancillary nature of this annexe.
Section 04
Reasons
[site address] is a bungalow that has next to it, in its grounds, a smaller single storey building. This was granted planning permission in 2010 as a ‘granny annexe’, with a condition imposed stating it could only be used for purposes ancillary to the residential use of No 11.
The proposal would be increasing the floor area of the annexe. However, this would not be great in either absolute terms or relative to the existing building. Moreover, being substantially glazed it would be a light, open, unimposing structure that would not appear to be part of the main habitable floorspace of the annexe, while it would sit within the extent of the end gable, set back from the line of the annexe’s side walls. Taking these factors together, it would constitute a subservient addition to the building. As such, it would not undermine or compromise the annexe’s ancillary nature in relation to No 11 or challenge the dominance of No 11 on the plot.
The conservatory would not be readily apparent from the public domain, but it could be seen from adjacent dwellings. However, the sizes of those surrounding gardens and the limited height of the proposal mean it would not have a dominant or imposing effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents or detract from the character and appearance of the area.
In order to ensure the structure did not appear discordant and for the avoidance of doubt, conditions should be imposed requiring the extension to be built of materials that matched the existing and be constructed in accordance with the approved plans.
Accordingly, I conclude that the development would not undermine the ancillary relationship between the annexe and No 11, and so would not conflict with Policy DE1 in the South Kesteven District Council Local Plan, which seeks development that is appropriate in scale, massing and density, or the requirements for good design in the National Planning Policy Framework. The appeal is therefore 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 193No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 31 January 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 26 January 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3281100
- Application reference
- S21/0888
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- South Kesteven District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000141
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
- 10 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
- 17 August 2021
- Valid date
- 17 August 2021
- Start date
- 10 November 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 8 July 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 31 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
- 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
- 9686
- 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