Appeal 3306840
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
6 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
rear extension, loft conversion, new dormer, new raised roof, minor internal works.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property comprises a detached bungalow amongst a group of bungalows. Whilst there is some variance in the designs of these bungalows they are of a similar height, detailing and materiality. Together, these bungalows have a cohesive appearance and scale and are settled within the street scene.
To facilitate the dormer extension, the roof of the appeal property would be altered. Whilst the extended roof would retain its original pitched form, the increase in the height of the property and the insertion of roof lights would appreciably alter its appearance making it conspicuous amongst this particular row of bungalows.
The extension to the rear would be logical because this largely extends over the existing footprint of the property. However, the proposed dormer extension would be set just below the ridge of the roof and would almost extend the full width of the roof. Moreover, the dormer extension because of its limited and small fenestration, would be dominated by its beige render finish which would overwhelm and fail to assimilate with the roof of the appeal property. In particular, the dominant scale of the proposed dormer extension would be evident from the access which is to the side of the appeal property.
As such, the scale and design of the proposal would harmfully alter the appearance of the appeal property, to the detriment of its design and the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find conflict with Policy OS2 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031, adopted September 2018, (‘LP’) which amongst other things requires all development should form a logical complement to the existing scale and pattern of development and/or the character of the area. I also find conflict with Policy OS4 of the LP, which states that new development should contribute to local distinctiveness and where possible enhance the character and quality of the surroundings.
Section 05
Other Matters
Whilst the appellants’ assert that neighbouring houses have similar roofs and extensions, I have not been provided with details of these.
I have noted the appellants’ reasons for requiring the proposed extension, which is because the current facilities are inadequate for their needs. Regardless, these are personal matters that do not heavily influence the planning merits of the case and the need to make planning decisions in the wider public interest. Also, there is no certainty that support for the proposal would safeguard the Green Belt or countryside from development. Therefore, I attach limited weight to these reasons in support of the proposal.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the above reasons, 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 196No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 7 March 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 23 February 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3306840
- Application reference
- 22/01972/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
- 208 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- Yes
- 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
- 12 September 2022
- Valid date
- 12 September 2022
- Start date
- 17 November 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 August 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 7 March 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
- 29385
- 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