Appeal 3299883
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
ground floor side extension, first floor side extension and part garage conversion.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
On the appeal form it is stated that the appeal is with regard to varying a condition. However, the planning application is for an extension to a dwelling and thus I have determined the appeal on this basis. I have described the development as that stated on the planning application form.
Section 04
[name]
I consider the main issues to be the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal dwelling is an end of terrace modern two-storey dwelling. The appeal development is substantially completed. I note that planning permission was previously granted for an extension. The development undertaken does not accord with that planning permission Ref: 20/01812/HHA. The most notable difference is that the eaves height of the extension are set above the eaves height of the existing dwelling, whereas the existing planning permission allowed for consistent eaves heights. In addition, the first-floor side extension has been rendered.
The dwellings in the vicinity of the site are mostly terraces or semi-detached dwellings, where eaves heights on these terraces or on the semi-detached dwellings are consistent. The surrounding dwellings are predominately brick. These features make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. Examples of rendered finish are situated further away.
Guidance in the [name] and [name] (2017) is for side extensions to be special, seamless or subservient. From my observations, the development, due to the eaves height and rendering, appears as an incongruous addition to the dwelling. Due to these design matters, it is neither special, seamless or subservient. This discordant addition significantly detracts from the character and appearance of the host dwelling.
In such a prominent location, where both the front and rear of the first floor are publicly visible, I consider that the development is poorly related to the design and roof forms of surrounding dwellings to the detriment of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
In reaching my decision, I have had regard to all matters raised including the complexity of construction of the roof addition in the existing approved planning permission. Nevertheless, the harm I have identified is of such a material nature that I have dismissed the appeal. Thus the development is contrary to guidance in the SPD and Policies CSTP22 and PMD2 in the Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development (as amended) 2015, where they seek to ensure extensions are of a high quality design, which contribute positively to the character of the area. I consider these policies to be broadly consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, especially where the Framework seeks to ensure good design.
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 1172No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 11 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 4 October 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3299883
- Application reference
- 21/02105/HHA
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Thurrock Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000034
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
- 2. Refused permission to vary or remove a condition(s)
- Appeal reason
- Appeal Against Conditions
- 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
- 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 26 May 2022
- Valid date
- 26 May 2022
- Start date
- 16 June 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 25 March 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 11 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
- No
- 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
- 21823
- 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