Skip to main content
Rules for YouPlanning, made clearerMenu
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

Appeal 3302688

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 works

One-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

No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. Section 03

    The Main Issue

    The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area and the host property.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    The appeal property is in a predominantly residential area and is a two-storey dwelling with a two-storey side extension and other additions.

    The proposed development follows an earlier application for a rear box dormer, refused on appeal in January 20221.

    Like the previous proposal dismissed on appeal, the current proposal is to raise the main ridge of the dwelling by some 0.65 metres and its eaves by approximately 0.2 metres. The ridge of the existing two storey side extension would be raised by some 0.375 metres. The dormers for both the previous and current proposal would have the same height and would extend to the proposed new ridge line, though would not exceed it.

    The current proposal differs from the previous scheme dismissed on appeal in two ways. Firstly, the length of the proposed dormer would be reduced from 1 APP/N1540 /D/21/3282269 Appeal Decision APP/N1540 /D/22/3302688 about 8.97 metres to approximately 7.95 , and secondly, the side cheeks to the dormer would be angled inwards rather than being vertical as previously.

    The proposed roof lift would make the host dwelling taller than its immediate neighbours, though the relative change in height would be minimal and I consider that no material harm would be caused to the overall character of the area when seen from the access road or from other vantage points.

    The proposed dormer would be seen by the occupiers of the properties facing it. On my site visit, I also saw that it would be visible from the public realm between No’s 24 and 27 and between 27 and 28 [name]. Even though the length of the proposed dormer has been reduced from the earlier dismissed proposal by just over 1 metre, this together with its height just below the ridge, would appear as a bulky and incongruous addition to the dwelling, thereby representing poor design.

    In addition, the roof design of the box dormer would be unrelated to the design of the rest of the dwelling with its double pitched roof. The Harlow Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2011(SPD) notes that ‘dormers are not a characteristic of Harlow’s residential areas and are not likely to be permitted where they are visible from the public realm’. The Harlow Design Guide Addendum SPD 2021(DGA) reaffirms this. I have noted that it would be seen from public vantage points.

    For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not accord with the design, character and appearance requirements of policy PL1 of the Harlow Local Development Plan 2020, the SDP, the DGA, or with chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

  4. Section 05

    Conclusion

    For the above reasons, 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 3544No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    24 October 2022Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    7 October 2022 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3302688
Application reference
HW/HSE/22/00104
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Harlow District Council
Planning authority code
E07000073

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
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
7 July 2022
Valid date
14 July 2022
Start date
22 July 2022
Planning authority decision date
17 May 2022
Appeal decision date
24 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
22404
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
Back to appeals databaseRequest a correction or privacy review