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 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
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’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
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.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
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.
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.
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