Appeal 3284849
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
described as the removal of a brick lean-to, the addition of two bedrooms and the incorporation of a garage into living space.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host building and the area.
Section 04
Character and appearance
The appeal property is a chalet-style, brick-built dwelling with a tiled roof, set back from [address] sufficiently to permit off-street parking.
The area is residential in nature and adjoining properties on the same side of the road, and especially including no’s 9 to 11 and 17 to [address], are generally single storey, detached bungalows of a similar character as the host building, with double pitched, tiled roofs. The appeal building, having rooms in the roof space, stands slightly higher than its neighbours. The adjoining property immediately to the south, while having a similar height, has a different design, with a front facing gable reaching to the ridge and is white rendered. Properties on the opposite side of [address] have a different design and include two storey properties.
The proposed development includes the raising of the ridge by approximately 1 metre and constructing a wide, front facing gable extending to the new ridge of the house. The existing garage would be altered and incorporated as additional habitable space. Appeal Ref: APP/C1570/D/21/3284849
The extra height of the dwelling plus the inclusion of a wide front gable would give it a materially different appearance to the dwellings adjoining it on the same side of the road and as described above, adversely affecting the general appearance of the houses around it on the same side and clashing with the positive factors that define it, including the generally simple, double pitch roof lines. By its proposed additional height and scale, it would appear as an incongruous addition in the street scene.
I do not disagree with the local planning authority (LPA) that the increased footprint of the building and choice of external building materials would be acceptable. Unlike the LPA, I see no reason to object to the size, number or design of the proposed window openings. However, these matters do not outweigh my concerns regarding the adverse effects of the wide gabled frontage and the proposed height increase of the ridge.
Therefore, I conclude that when the development is considered as a whole, it would conflict with policies H8 and GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan 2005, the [address] [name] 2005, the [name] 2018 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2021, all of which stress the need for good design in keeping with the local environment.
Section 05
Other Matters
I have taken into account the needs of the applicant for extra space, but this does not outweigh my conclusions upon the main issue.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should 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 163No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 24 February 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 February 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3284849
- Application reference
- UTT/21/1807/HHF
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Uttlesford District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000077
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
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 1
- 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
- 14 October 2021
- Valid date
- 14 October 2021
- Start date
- 27 October 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 July 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 24 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
- No
- 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
- 11189
- 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