Appeal 3298713
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
5 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
demolition of existing conservatory and new 2 storey extension to rear.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area and whether the proposal would conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a 2 storey detached dwelling in a residential area in the [name]. The rear of the property backs onto a grassed area and parking court. There are clear views of the property from here as well as from [address] as a result of the site being on higher ground.
The design of the extensions would span the width of the rear of the property. The bulk and massing created would form an incongruous addition that would appear obtrusive and incompatible with the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. The proposed materials may have been drawn from the local vernacular but they would be insufficient to mitigate the harm.
In failing to achieve a sensitive design that responds to the local character and distinctiveness, the proposal would not conserve or enhance the character of the AONB.
The scheme has been subject to numerous iterations. Whilst concerns regarding the impact on living conditions may have been overcome, the scheme would still not be acceptable in terms of the impact on character and appearance. Even if there were a betterment to the living conditions of the neighbouring property as a result of the development, it would not outweigh the harm to character and appearance.
The appellant says that there are numerous examples of similar extensions elsewhere in the area, citing specific examples at No 6 and No 30 [site address] . However, I have limited information in which to be able to make direct comparisons with the case before me and in any event the site is in a different location and so the circumstances will be different. Additionally, each case is determined on its own merits and my assessment is based on the information before me.
The development would harm the character and appearance of the area and would not conserve or enhance the natural beauty of the [name]. As such it would conflict with Policy OS2 and OS4 of West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 (Local Plan). Amongst other things, these policies require development to be of a proportionate and appropriate scale to its context and be a logical complement to the existing scale and pattern of development and character of the area. [name] great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty. It also requires new development to respect the architectural quality of the area and contribute to local distinctiveness. The development would also conflict with Policy H6 of the Local Plan which requires alterations and extensions to existing dwellings should respect the character of the surrounding area.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons identified, 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 3546No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 26 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 September 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3298713
- Application reference
- 21/03596/HHD
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- West Oxfordshire District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000181
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
- 10 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
- 11 May 2022
- Valid date
- 11 May 2022
- Start date
- 16 June 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 29 April 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 26 October 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
- 22535
- 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