Appeal 3289211
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
5 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 first floor rear extension (north elevation) and annex outbuilding in garden.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including upon the setting of nearby listed buildings.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site forms one half of a pair of red brick cottages set within a semi-rural location. The Church, otherwise known as St. [name] and [address] to the north east are of the local vernacular and are both grade II listed. There is a large outbuilding building within the curtilage of [address], located between it and the appeal dwelling.
The proposed extension would be highly visible from the road and by virtue of its rendered finish and vertically hung slates on the flank of a flat roof link would jar visually with the traditional architecture of the host dwelling. I also note that one key characteristic of the front elevation of the cottages is that the dormer windows break the eaves line which has not been carried over into the design of the proposal before me.
I agree that knocking down the existing extension would be a waste of resources and I note the difficulty in finding an economical solution to extend the dwelling at first floor level, having regard to the lack of a recess against the plane of the original gable. Nonetheless this and the considerable flat-roof linking element constitute a situation where the form would follow its function.
I note the reference to potential for Permitted Development extensions, however it falls to me to determine the appeal proposal based on the submitted drawings, and on their merits.
I acknowledge that the rear extension and the Church could not be easily read at the same time, nonetheless Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires a decision maker to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of a Listed Building. The extension could clearly be viewed from the curtilage of the Church and bearing in mind my concerns with regard to the impacts of the proposal upon the general character and appearance of the area, I also find that less than substantial harm to the setting of the designated heritage asset would be caused. On this latter point, pursuant to paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) I find that no public benefits outweigh the harm that would be caused by the proposal.
From this basis I find the scheme conflicts with Policies D1 and EN9 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 – 2031 which together require new development to be of a high quality design, to respect the key characteristics and special qualities of the area in which the development is proposed, as well as reflecting the requirements of Framework in paragraph 202.
Section 05
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
- 31 March 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 March 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3289211
- Application reference
- 21/1795/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- East Devon District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000040
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
- 12 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- 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
- 16 December 2021
- Valid date
- 16 December 2021
- Start date
- 19 January 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 1 October 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 31 March 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
- 13287
- 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