Appeal 3290249
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
formation of habitable rooms in roof space rear dormer.
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
The appeal property is a two-storey end dwelling which is part of a small terrace with a simple and plain appearance, located in a cul-de-sac of similar properties. The appeal property is also within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (‘AONB’).
The roof of the appeal property is viewed in the context of that for the wider terrace. In keeping with the distinct simple style of these properties, the roof is fairly plain in appearance, characterised by its pitched form, punctuated by projecting gables. There are no evident dormer extensions in the immediate vicinity.
The proposed dormer extension would be set just below the ridge of the roof and would almost extend the full width of the small rear roof space, including onto the roofline of the rear gable. This would cover most of the roof slope of the appeal property. Moreover, although clad in materials to match the existing dwelling, the asymmetrical form of the dormer extension would be conspicuous and its siting would also erode and compromise the design of the roof of the rear gable.
Overall, the proposed dormer extension would dominate the roof of the host dwelling and its irregular form would detract from its simple design and the roof of the wider terrace. Thereby, harmfully altering their appearance to the detriment of the distinct character of the locality.
Moreover, the proposal would to an extent be visible in views from the Public Right of Way and the parking area to the rear of the appeal property. This would exacerbate the detrimental effect of the proposal.
For the above reasons, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Consequently, this conflicts with Policy EN2 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 (adopted 3 August 2018), which states that proposals should be of a design quality that respects the character and distinctive appearance of the locality, in accordance with the [name] ([name]). This advises that roof alterations, dormers should be in keeping with the building to which they are added, in their placement, scale and design.
Section 05
Other Matters
The appellant has provided examples of other dormer extensions. However, I have limited information on the context and circumstances in which these were permitted. In any event, none of these are of an asymmetrical form like the one proposed in the appeal scheme. As such, these examples are not directly comparable to the appeal scheme and do not alter my findings on the main issue.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the above reasons, 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 196No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 March 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 23 February 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3290249
- Application reference
- 21/02896/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Cotswold District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000079
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
- 27 m²
- 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
- Yes
- 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
- 14 January 2022
- Start date
- 7 November 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 15 October 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 10 March 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
- 29573
- 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