Appeal 3307618
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
for a loft conversion with creation of rear and front dormer and internal alterations at first floor level and removal of existing chimney.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
Subsequent to the refusal of planning permission, the subject of this appeal, the Council issued a Certificate of Lawfulness for a Proposed Development comprising the erection of a dormer window on the rear elevation of [site address] (Ref. 22/02443/CLPS), which would facilitate the creation of an additional bedroom without the need for an application for planning permission. I give this significant weight as a material planning consideration and one which would outweigh the second element of the Council’s reasons for refusal with regard to the provision of additional car parking. I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue therefore is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a semi-detached house located within a residential estate of two storey dwellings of similar designs albeit some are within terraces.
I note the appellant’s reference to a dormer window being permitted to the front elevation of another dwelling within the same Ward as the appeal site, however I have been given little detail on this and ultimately each case must be assessed on its own merits.
I noted on my site visit that the immediate vicinity comprises front roof slopes which are unaltered and the proposed dormer would be quite a substantial addition to the principal elevation of the host dwelling.
I consider that notwithstanding the set-down from the ridge and the distance between the side of the roof and the eaves line, it would amount to an uncharacteristic feature that would appear incongruous within the street scene.
[name] accept that the proposal is not located within a designated Conservation Area nonetheless the National Planning Policy Framework places great emphasis upon high quality design. There may be a number of anomalies to front elevations, but nonetheless those examples at nos 58 and 60, and [address] are materially different to the appeal proposal before me.
I therefore find that the proposal would result in an unduly prominent and visually intrusive roof alteration that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy E1 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan (2016) which stipulates that development will be permitted if it is of a high quality in terms of design and local distinctiveness and, amongst other things, should integrate, respect and complement the character of the area in which the development is located.
Section 06
Conclusion
Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal 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 297No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 28 February 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 13 February 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3307618
- Application reference
- 22/02031/FULLS
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Test Valley Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000093
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
- Unknown
- 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
- 26 September 2022
- Valid date
- 26 October 2022
- Start date
- 1 December 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 15 September 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 28 February 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
- 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
- 28970
- 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