Appeal 3308118
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
the demolition of the existing conservatory, replacement of the detached garage and erection of a two-storey rear extension and front dormer to create first floor accommodation.
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 street scene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a detached bungalow with a hipped roof form. It is situated in a residential street and forms part of a group of bungalows of similar age and appearance. Whilst many of these dwellings have been extended to the rear, and some include small dormers at the front, they all retain the hipped roof form at the front and consequently form a relatively cohesive group. This gives this portion of [address] a high level of unity, a matter to which I attach significant weight.
The proposal would include the erection of a full-width rear extension and the expansion of the roof to create a barn-style roof form. In addition, gables would be formed above the pair of bay windows at the front. Due to its size and siting the enlarged roof form at the front would be an overly prominent and incongruous feature that would be at odds with the appearance of the group of bungalows of which the appeal property forms part. This incongruity would be further exacerbated by the gabled bay windows.
For these reasons I conclude that due to it siting, bulk and design, the appeal proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the street scene. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy DM1 of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2022), which states that all new development should take full and proper account of the context of the site including the character and appearance of the locality. There is also conflict with the aims of the Council’s Quality Places Supplementary Planning Document (2011) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), the former of which states that in streets with very uniform roof design, significant alterations are generally unacceptable.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.
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 246No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 December 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 25 November 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3308118
- Application reference
- H/22/93179
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Eastleigh Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000086
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
- 90 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
- 3 October 2022
- Valid date
- 3 October 2022
- Start date
- 10 November 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 6 September 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 22 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
- 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
- 25713
- 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