Appeal 3298198
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
3 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
“single storey rear extension replacing existing extension, hip to gable roof conversion, and minor exterior alterations to windows”.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension replacing the existing extension, a hip to gable roof conversion, and alterations to the windows, at [site address] , in accordance with the application, Ref 21/01898/FUL, dated 21 December 2021, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 176/101, 176/102 and 176/103.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development shall match those used on the existing building.
Section 03
Reasons
[address] is a mainly residential street, which also contains a mixture of other uses including retail, commercial and community uses. Architecturally, the existing buildings vary widely in age and style. No single building type predominates. The area as a whole is densely developed.
The appeal property is a 2-storey detached house with four reception rooms and three bedrooms. The development now proposed would add an extended kitchen/dining/family room to the rear, replacing an existing smaller outbuilding. It would also extend the existing main roof, from a hipped design to one with two gable ends, plus a rear box-dormer, to accommodate an additional bedroom and bathroom at second floor level. There would also be some minor alterations to existing windows. The Council raises no objection to the rear extension, the dormer, or the window alterations, and I agree that these are uncontroversial. The matters in dispute are therefore limited to the hip-to-gable element of the proposed roof enlargement.
The Council argues that the gabled roof form would be out of keeping with the area. On my visit however, I saw several other examples of gabled roofs, of varying types and styles. These include Nos 53 and 55A, which directly adjoin the appeal property on either side, and Nos 52 and 56, which are both within a few metres of the appeal site. A short distance to the south there is also another prominent gabled roof at No 31A, which is particularly visible due to its elevated corner position. None of these other examples appears to me to be noticeably at odds with the surroundings, and indeed it seems to me that the variety of roof forms on display is an established part of the area’s mixed architectural character.
I agree that the appeal property is quite prominent, due to its size and position, and the roof enlargement now proposed would increase that prominence to some degree. But nevertheless, the pitch of the front and rear roof slopes, and the main ridge height, would all be unchanged. So too would the overall width and depth. Consequently, whilst there would be some additional mass and volume, the size of the roof would remain proportionate to the building as a whole. Overall, it seems to me that the proposed design would be well-balanced and well-composed. In these circumstances, I see no reason why the proposed enlargement should be considered detrimental to the character or appearance of the building or its surroundings.
I note the Council’s reference to the [name], dated 2006, which advises against the reconfiguring of roofs where this would adversely impact on the character of the area. However, for the reasons that I have identified, I do not consider that the present appeal proposal would have such an effect. Similarly, I have had full regard for Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy1 and Policies SP1, SP7 and SP9 of the Local Plan2, which all seek to encourage good design and respect for local context. For the same reasons, I find no conflict with the aims of these policies.
I conclude that the proposed development would cause no material harm to the character or appearance of the area, or to the local street scene. The appeal is therefore allowed.
In granting planning permission, I have imposed conditions controlling the choice of materials, and requiring adherence to the approved plans. These are necessary to ensure a satisfactory appearance, and to provide certainty as to the nature of the development permitted.
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 88No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 15 July 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 5 July 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3298198
- Application reference
- 21/01898/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Southampton City Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000045
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
- 67 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 4 May 2022
- Valid date
- 4 May 2022
- Start date
- 10 May 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 16 February 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 15 July 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
- 17863
- 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