Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

Appeal 3281736

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 works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

7 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

described as a ‘2 storey side and 1.5 storey front extension’.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. Section 03

    Preliminary Matters

    I noted from my site visit that the property is undergoing alteration following the planning permission granted in November 2020. The appeal proposal seeks to amend this partly implemented scheme to increase the height of the front extension and incorporate two dormers on the roof slope above the garage.

  3. Section 04

    Main Issue

    The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

  4. Section 05

    Reasons

    The appeal building is a detached two storey dwelling occupying a visually prominent corner plot within a reasonably modern residential estate, fronting on to [address]. It is clearly visible from The Pastures, one of the main roads through the area. Surrounding buildings are a mix of two storey dwellings and bungalows of varied character. Where properties have been extended, such additions are generally designed to be subordinate to the host property.

    Whilst the front extension under construction is a subordinate addition, with the ridge sitting below the first-floor window sills, the increased height of the appeal proposal would substantially add to the visual bulk, scale and massing of the addition, making it more dominant and restricting views of the front of the dwelling from the eastern approach along The Pastures. The unifying of the roofline with the lean-to addition on the gable would also add to the visual massing and dominance of the appeal proposal, as would the addition of dormers to facilitate the enlarged first floor. The appellant has commented that the existing boundary hedge would provide an effective screen for the extension, but this would not assist in mitigating the impact of the additional height and massing from raising the roof.

    The appeal scheme would be a disproportionate and dominating addition to the front elevation of this prominent building, to the detriment of both its design and the character and appearance of the area generally. The proposed development would therefore have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with Policy CS2 of the Blaby District Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document (2013) and Policy DM1 of the Blaby District Local Plan (Delivery) Development Plan Document (2019) which seek, amongst other things, to improve the design quality of all new development. It would also be contrary to the high-quality design expectations of section 12 of the 2021 National Planning Policy Framework.

  5. Section 06

    Other Matters

    The appellant has identified properties within the surrounding area which have dormers to prominent elevations. [name] acknowledge that dormers feature on several other local buildings, I have already commented above that in this case the dormers would add to the visual massing and dominance of the front extension, contributing to the harm, rather than the presence of the dormers themselves. The appellant has also commented that the ground levels would make the front extension more like a single storey extension but having viewed the partly implemented scheme and reviewed the appeal proposals I have already taken these ground levels into account in reaching my conclusion.

  6. Section 07

    Conclusion

    For the reasons given above and taking all other matters into account, I conclude that the proposed development would conflict with the development plan. The appeal should therefore be 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 2083No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    17 January 2022Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    21 December 2021 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3281736
Application reference
20/1433/HH
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Blaby District Council
Planning authority code
E07000129

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
24 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
25 August 2021
Valid date
25 August 2021
Start date
5 October 2021
Planning authority decision date
22 July 2021
Appeal decision date
17 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
8976
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