Appeal 3290203
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
Part single, part-two storey side and rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
Since the submission of the appeal the Council have adopted the Braintree District Local Plan 2013 - 2033 (2022) (the Local Plan), which replaces the Braintree District Local Plan Review (2005) and the Braintree District Local Development Framework [name] (2011). Both parties were given the opportunity to provide additional comments, therefore no party has been prejudiced or caused any injustice by me proceeding with the appeal in light of the changes in policy.
The Council altered the description of the development, I consider the revised description to be a more accurate description of the appeal proposal, accordingly I have adopted the amended descriptions in the heading above.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area in general.
Section 05
Reasons
The site is within a predominantly residential area and comprises a semi-detached two storey property with a three-storey block of flats adjacent, [address]. The existing property is set back from the road with open space to the front and to the west between the appeal site and [address]. The site is located at the end of a row of three pairs of semi-detached dwellings.
The proposed development is set back from the front of the property and stepped down in terms of height. Notwithstanding this the extension proposed would be of similar width to the existing property. Due to the scale of the proposed development visually the pair of semi-detached properties could be read as a row of terraced properties.
The proposal includes a first floor gable to the rear, there are limited views of the rear elevation of this property given the landscape screening to the rear of the site and the railway beyond. Nonetheless due to the width of the proposed extension the addition of a rear gable would be an overbearing feature and incongruous to the existing property. I find that the proposed extension would not subservient to the existing property.
The gap between the proposed development and [address] would be reduced, nevertheless the proposal would preserve a gap between the built form which would not harm the overall character of the area.
I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area in general. There is conflict with [name] 36, LPP 47 and LPP 52 of the Local Plan which amongst other things seek to ensure developments are of high standards of design, respect local context and for residential extensions to be subordinate to the original dwelling.
There is also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) which seeks to ensure developments are of good design appropriate and sympathetic to their surroundings.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the above reasons I conclude that this 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 126No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 September 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 3 August 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3290203
- Application reference
- 21/02962/HH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Braintree District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000067
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
- 60 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
- 6 January 2022
- Valid date
- 6 January 2022
- Start date
- 26 January 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 1 December 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 22 September 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
- 20862
- 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