Appeal 3307625
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
loft conversion with dormers; raising in height of existing outrigger.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is the end property in a small terrace of three houses on the corner of [address] and [address]. A side access separates the house from a similarly designed pair of semi-detached houses. That pair of houses and the appeal property and adjoining house have conjoined 2 storey rear projecting wings with pitched roofs. Trees and bushes limit views of them from the school that backs on to the site. There are also trees along the grass verge next to the footway on [address] on the approach to the junction with [address]. These restrict views of the rear of the houses from the road, which are also limited because [address] angles away from the appeal site as it approaches the junction. Nonetheless, they are visible to pedestrians using the footway and as such they contribute to the street scene to some degree.
The proposed increase in height of the 2 storey rear wing above that of the adjoining house and replacement of the shared pitched roof with 2 mono pitched roofs would appear awkward, out of balance and at odds with the neighbouring houses. As such it would harm the appearance of the host property and its adjoining neighbour and the immediate surroundings. Only part of the dormer proposed on this section of roof would be visible from [address] because it is set back from the gable end, and the dormer on the main roof would be hidden behind it. However, even partial glimpses of the dormer on the rear wing would add to the incongruous appearance that I have identified, particularly as dormers are generally found on main roofs rather than rear outriggers and there are none on neighbouring properties. Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the appearance of the host property and immediate area and as such would conflict with Policy DH1 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 (2020) which requires high quality design that enhances local distinctiveness. Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), referred to in the Council’s decision, deals with the development of design policies rather than the quality of design and is not directly relevant.
Section 05
Other Matters
I have had regard to the examples of extensions provided by the appellant but none of them appeared to be directly comparable with the current appeal proposal. In any case, I have come to my own view regarding the development rather than relying on the approach the Council may have taken elsewhere.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above 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 128No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 February 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 February 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3307625
- Application reference
- 22/00477/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Oxford City Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000178
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
- 30 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
- 26 September 2022
- Valid date
- 26 September 2022
- Start date
- 18 January 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 July 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 27 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
- 28894
- 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