Appeal 3283974
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
6 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
for a rear ground floor extension; additional storey over bungalow with pitched roof over.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The main issues are the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area; and upon the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with specific reference to privacy.
Section 04
Character and Appearance
The appeal site is situated within a residential area comprising a mix of dwelling types and designs; there are 2no detached houses opposite the appeal site, with other dwellings in the cul-de-sac comprising bungalows and chalet bungalows.
The host dwelling is a hipped roof bungalow of modest proportions, there are bungalows either side although no 32 has a pair of dormer windows on the facing elevation; it is gable fronted, but nonetheless remains relatively compact in its appearance.
The proposal would significantly increase the height of the host dwelling and combined with the rear extension would create a two storey structure with a very deep plan form. Consequently it would result in a significantly enlarged dwelling which would appear unduly conspicuous in the street scene, and out of scale with the neighbouring bungalows.
I understand the appellant’s reasoning behind the proposal, however I am not convinced that the scheme before me is the only solution to increase living accommodation on the site. Further, no evidence has been put before me that would demonstrate that such a scheme would normally comprise Permitted Development, notwithstanding that the proposed materials would match the existing bungalow.
Therefore in spite of the fact that the current property may be of dated construction and the design is to meet the requirements of modern family living, I find that the proposal would give rise to demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area. It is contrary to Policy ENV3 of the New Forest District Local Plan Part 1 2020 and Policies D1 and D3 of the Hythe and Dibden Neighbourhood Plan which together require developments to achieve high quality design that contributes positively to local distinctiveness whilst avoiding unacceptable effects by reason of visual intrusion; and create buildings which are sympathetic to their context, including in relationship to adjoining buildings.
Section 05
Living Conditions
There are 3no windows proposed on the north east elevation of the dwelling to be extended; one of which would serve a bedroom; and consequently overlooking from this into the dormer windows on the facing elevation of no [address] to a material level of loss of privacy. This would be contrary to Policy ENV3 of the Local Plan which also requires new development to avoid unacceptable effects by reason of, amongst other things, visual intrusion and overlooking.
Section 06
Conclusion
Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal 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 297No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 1 February 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 18 January 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3283974
- Application reference
- 21/10632
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- New Forest District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000091
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
- Unknown
- 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
- 214 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
- 30 September 2021
- Valid date
- 7 October 2021
- Start date
- 7 December 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 July 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 1 February 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
- 9776
- 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