Appeal 3284391
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
increase of ridge height by 450mm and insertion of rear flat roofed dormer and front facing rooflights.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The host property is a two-storey detached dwelling on a cul-de-sac. It has had planning approval for previous works. The property is located on the edge of the residential area, close to the M1 motorway.
There is a general uniformity to the detached dwellings on The Hollies. They are all designed in a similar manner, brick built with attached garages. This regularity of design and construction materials for the dwellings in this cul-de-sac adds positively and distinctively to the character and appearance of the area.
There is some variation in the building line as to the position of the plots, but the build regularity outweighs this point. The appeal dwelling seeking a roof height increase would affect the character and appearance of the area. While there are some alterations to the plots (including the host dwelling), this regularity adds to the character and appearance of the area.
I find that the significant increase in roof height would alter the appearance of the property in a negative manner as it is approached from the front, when seen in the context of the other properties within the cul-de-sac. This roof height increase would then form the method in which the rear dormer could be constructed. However, the design of the dormer does not follow the guidance set out in the Council’s “[name]” Supplementary Planning Document in terms of a set-in from the roof plane.
Whilst rear dormers are usually permitted development, the raising of the roof in order to accommodate the dormer is a factor that weighs heavily against the rear dormer and would lead to an unsightly extension which would be visible from other properties in the locality.
In summary, I consider the raising of the roof and the insertion of the rear dormer are banded together, and would cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area, conflicting with Policy DC2 of the Erewash Local Plan (2014) and Policy 10 of the [name] (2014) which, amongst other matters, expect development to be of a scale and design that is in keeping with the dwelling to be extended, neighbouring properties and the surrounding area, as well as the guidance set out in the [name].
Section 05
Other Matters
I have noted the comments of the appellant in relation to the previous extension, but I must deal with the appeal on its own merits and have identified harm in my assessment.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, I therefore 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 221No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 23 February 2022Differs from the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 January 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3284391
- Application reference
- ERE/0621/0072
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Erewash Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000036
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
- 6 October 2021
- Valid date
- 6 October 2021
- Start date
- 7 December 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 August 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 17 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
- 10792
- 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