Appeal 3291815
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
Proposed single storey rear extension and first floor side extension with new flat roof over existing porch.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
I saw at the site visit that the proposed development has already been carried out. I have determined the appeal on this basis.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the street scene, with particular regards to the external materials used.
Section 05
Reasons
I saw at the site visit that the dwellings in the area are generally finished in red brick, with some additional elements of render and cladding to some properties. I also noted that many properties had been subject of a range of alterations, in particular with regards windows and porches with various finishes and designs used.
The appeal property including the extensions have been finished in a buff render without any notable detailing or retention of the red bricks that are characteristic of the area. Consequently, the appeal property appears as a prominent and incongruous feature within the street scene, harming the street scene.
In support of the appeal the appellant details that “the original brickwork of the properties at first floor level is of poor quality and the face of the brickwork had been the subject of significant deterioration”. Evidence provided by the appellant appears to show that some repointing or similar such work had previously been carried out.
Clearly the installed render obscures the brickwork and as such I was not able to judge the condition of the brickwork of the appeal property at the site visit. I did not notice any significant deterioration of the brickwork in neighbouring properties, which might reasonably be expected given that the properties are contemporaneous.
The appellant provided some limited details of the use of render elsewhere. The limited details provided, in particular the absence of any context, do not persuade me as to the acceptability of the appeal scheme. Furthermore, I note that one of the examples retained brick detailing and a further example was part of a wider development that included other rendered properties in contrast to the appeal scheme.
For the reasons detailed above I find that the appeal scheme would harm the street scene contrary to Policy 29 of the County Durham Plan and the guidance set out in the Residential Amenity Standards Supplementary Planning Document that, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that new development contributes positively to the character of an area.
Section 06
Other Matters
The appellant suggests that the render will not be easy to remove and to achieve a satisfactory finish brick slips many be used. Such proposals are not before me, and I have determined the proposals as they have been submitted.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given above 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 536No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 16 May 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 19 April 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3291815
- Application reference
- DM/21/02197/FPA
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Durham County Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000047
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
- 100 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
- 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
- 31 January 2022
- Valid date
- 31 January 2022
- Start date
- 2 February 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 8 December 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 16 May 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
- 15252
- 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