Appeal 3286113
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
construction of porch extension and widening of drive.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
[address] predominantly contains semidetached dwellings. Most exhibit high degrees of symmetry, which combines with the general absence of unsympathetic alterations to create a well-ordered and well-maintained street scene. No 8 is one of a pair which share a near symmetrical facade, with the entrances set centrally between projecting bays which bookend the building.
Given its length, width and placement to one side, the porch would disrupt the symmetrical composition of the building to its detriment and that of the street scene. As these are matters of massing and location, they would not be resolved by matching the materials with the existing dwelling. The appellant makes a fair point about the potential construction of a porch under Permitted Development Rights, and the possible design of such. However, it seems to me that any such porch would be clearly smaller, and therefore less detrimental.
As such, the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy CP17 of the [name] (adopted 2015), saved Policy DG1 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995- 2011, the [name] to Extension Design Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2008) and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Section 05
Other Matters
I recognise that the appellant undertook consultation with neighbouring residents, none of whom have objected. I also acknowledge that the proposal would help to future proof the standard of accommodation within the house. However, these matters do not serve to overcome the harm I have identified.
Section 06
Conclusion
Consequently, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this conflict. For these reasons, and taking all other matters raised into account, 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 255No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 February 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 2 February 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3286113
- Application reference
- 21/0209/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Exeter City Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000041
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
- 9 m²
- 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
- 3 November 2021
- Valid date
- 3 November 2021
- Start date
- 5 January 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 20 October 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 10 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
- 10402
- 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