Appeal 3296091
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
the erection of a front 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 host property and locality.
Section 04
Character and appearance
The appeal property is a semi-detached bungalow with a front bay, gable ended roof and roof lights. The locality is of established residential character and buildings and gardens come together to create a neighbourhood of pleasing appearance with an understated sense of suburbia. The appeal property is in a row of broadly similar low-key single storey dwellings on its side of the road, with two storey homes featuring across the street. The appeal scheme is as described above.
The scene along this row of bungalows is serene and generally visually uniform and regrettably the proposed dormer would markedly interrupt the pleasing rhythm. More specifically it would also unbalance these semi-detached homes and look an incongruous element on a roofscape which, in a good sense, is unremarkable. In my assessment the appeal proposal would be aesthetically unfortunate, jarring on the eye, and damaging to the streetscene.
Policies QD14 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan, CP12 of the City Plan Part One and DM21 of the City Plan Part 2 are relevant. Taken together and amongst other matters, these policies seek well designed and suitably scaled development that should protect the character and visual quality of buildings and the local distinctiveness of their wider area and generally have architectural merit. In all the circumstances I conclude that the appeal scheme would conflict with these planning policies.
Section 05
Other matters
I do understand the Appellant’s wish to increase accommodation and I can see that thought has been given to materials and window alignments. I appreciate there are some other roof alterations in the locality albeit I do not know their full planning background and I am not convinced that they provide a positive contribution to the scene. In any event, they are not necessarily identical to the appeal scheme in form and certainly not in the immediate context of this run of homes, and I must assess this case on its own merits. I have carefully considered all the points raised by the Appellant but these matters do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to the main issue identified above.
I confirm that policies in the National Planning Policy Framework have been considered; the Council’s policies which I cite mirror relevant objectives within that document.
Section 06
Overall conclusion
For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable effects on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Accordingly, the appeal is 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 352No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 August 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 4 August 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3296091
- Application reference
- BH2021/04370
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 1 April 2022
- Valid date
- 5 April 2022
- Start date
- 21 April 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 March 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 17 August 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
- 19398
- 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