Appeal 3304290
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
single storey front, side and rear extensions.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the streetscene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a detached bungalow with a rear conservatory situated on Yew Tree Drive, a cul-de-sac of five residential bungalows. The appeal site is bound to the north and south by neighbouring dormer bungalows, to the west by the garden of a residential dwelling accessed from [address] and to the east by Yew Tree Drive.
The five bungalows and their outbuildings have a graduated front building line and are generally built in close proximity to one another. There was formerly a single garage near the northern boundary of the appeal site, but it has been demolished.
The proposed development proposes single storey extensions to the front, rear and both north and south flanks of the bungalow. The rear extension would have a flat roof with three rooflights. It would be a similar depth to the existing conservatory. The front/southern side extension and front/northern side extension would project forward of the existing front elevation. The front/southern side extension would change a flat roof to a pitched roof. The front/northern side extension would be a similar width to the recently demolished garage. It would have a pitched roof.
Whilst there is scope to extend the bungalow, the proposed front extensions would result in front projections which would create an unsympathetic bulk and mass detrimental to the visual appearance and character of the host dwelling. They would fail to respect the existing character of the streetscene and result in an overly dominant development. I also agree with the Local Planning Authority that the proposed resulting array of fenestration along the front elevation would contribute to the dominant appearance.
In addition, the resulting roof profiles viewed from the front would create an unduly fussy and over-complicated arrangement of 4 pitched roofs with the fifth pitch of the main roof behind. This is not in my view a high quality design. The original more modest lines of the host dwelling would become lost, particularly with the front projections as designed.
Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would unduly harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the streetscene. It would be in conflict with policies DM35 and DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (adopted 2019) and section 8 of the Housing Planning and Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document.
Section 05
Conclusion
I have borne in mind that there would be economic benefits flowing from creating new development, and benefits in creating more living space at the property. However, these do not outweigh the harm I have identified above. 10.Having taken into account all representations made, for the reasons given above I dismiss the appeal. [name].C.
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 4043No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 20 January 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 December 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3304290
- Application reference
- 22/05235/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Buckinghamshire Council - Wycombe Area *
- Planning authority code
- E07000007
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 August 2022
- Valid date
- 11 August 2022
- Start date
- 26 September 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 June 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 20 January 2023
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
- 26770
- 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