Appeal 3288671
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 an ‘additional storey over the original footprint of the two-storey dwelling to create a three-storey dwelling.’
Section 02
Decision
Appeal A is dismissed. Appeal B is dismissed.
Section 03
Applications for costs
Applications for costs were made by [name] against Brighton & Hove City Council. These applications are the subject of separate decisions.
Section 04
Background
The appeals are made following the refusal of two applications for notification for ‘prior approval’ for the development described in the banner headings above. The appeals are alternative schemes for the dwelling and are mutually exclusive. Whilst they are different, both schemes involve raising the eaves and roof on the dwelling. The key differences were that Appeal A proposed a greater overall increase in the height of the building and Appeal B included a rear dormer. Appeal Decisions APP/Q1445/D/21/3288579 and APP/Q1445/D/21/3288671
The Council did not consider either scheme to be permitted development and in the case of Appeal A, considered there to be harm to the character and appearance of the building.
It was clear from my site visit that an extension almost identical to Appeal B has been implemented and largely completed.
Section 05
[name]
In light of the above, the main issue in each case is whether the proposals comply with the conditions, limitations and restrictions applicable to development permitted under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO. In the case of Appeal A, there is the further issue as to whether or not the proposed development adversely affects the character and appearance of the building.
Section 06
Reasons
With reference to my observations on site, works to extend the dwelling upwards have already taken place. Prior approval cannot be granted for development that has already begun, whether or not it is wholly or partially completed. This applies even if the development was begun after the application was made or during the appeal process.
Given the nature and extent of the works undertaken, I am satisfied that, as a matter of fact and degree, these works cannot be clearly severed from either of the appeal schemes.
As such, neither scheme would comply with [name].3.(13) of Class AA, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO, which prohibits the commencement of development prior to receipt of a written notice giving prior approval. On this basis, neither appeal scheme therefore amounts to permitted development.
The question of whether, on its merits, prior approval should be given for Appeal A does not therefore arise and so there is no need for me to consider this issue.
Section 07
Conclusion
I therefore conclude that the appeals must 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.
Costs Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 272No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 23 February 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 7 February 2023 (page 1)
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 272No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 23 February 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 7 February 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3288671
- Application reference
- BH2021/03674
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Brighton and Hove City Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000043
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
- 3. Refused prior approval of permitted development rights
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Lead
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
- 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
- 8 December 2021
- Valid date
- 20 December 2021
- Start date
- 12 April 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 8 December 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 23 February 2023
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
- 28701
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21