Appeal 3306334
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
a front porch with pitched roof.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
The appeal property benefits from a recent planning permission1 for the “construction of a small front porch with a pitch roof.” The proposal the subject of this appeal is for a larger front porch.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a two storey mid-terrace dwelling extended at roof level and to the rear. It is located in a residential area and is situated along [address] in a prominent position, close to [address]’s junction with [address] and opposite [address]’s junction with [address].
The area is largely characterised by the presence of short rows of two-storey terraced houses of broadly similar design, set back from the road behind short gardens and/or parking areas and with longer gardens to the rear.
During my site visit, I observed that, whilst many dwellings have been altered and/or extended, the similarities in their overall appearance resulting from the rhythm of development, the common use of similar materials, the predominant presence of hipped roofs to end-dwellings, the regular appearance of gaps 1 Reference: 22/0399/HSE. between rows of dwellings and the presence of modest porches or canopies above front doors, provides for a pleasant sense of uniformity.
The row of terraced houses within which the appeal property is located presents many of these uniform features. Notably, there is an absence of any large porches to the front elevation of any of the dwellings in the terrace.
Whilst the appeal property benefits from a permission for the development of a porch, this is for a modest addition. In contrast, the proposed development is for a larger porch that would project forwards for some considerable depth. I find that the dimensions of the proposal are such that it would result in the development of a porch of such scale that it would appear as an incongruous feature – out of keeping with the uniform qualities of the terrace.
The harm arising from the above would be exacerbated as a result of the appeal property’s prominent location, such that the proposal would draw undue attention to itself as an incongruent development widely visible in its surroundings. 10.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to London Plan (2021) Policies D1, D4 and D8; to DPD2 policy BP11; to Core Strategy3 Policy CP3; and to the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2012), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
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 601No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 30 December 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 9 December 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3306334
- Application reference
- 22/00933/HSE
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Council
- Planning authority code
- E09000002
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
- 4 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
- 5 September 2022
- Valid date
- 5 September 2022
- Start date
- 3 November 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 July 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 30 December 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
- 25898
- 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