Appeal 3312297
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
one and a half storey side extensions, new roof with accommodation within roofspace and new external finishes.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The appellant states that two case officers were assigned to the case and that this caused delays in determination as well as uncertainty to the appellant. These are matters between the appellant and the Council.
Section 04
[name]
The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regards to outlook; and whether the proposal would be acceptable with regards to flood risk.
Section 05
Character and appearance
The appeal property is a detached bungalow with a hipped roof. It is set back from the road within a garden which surrounds all four sides of the dwelling.
The appeal property is located in a residential area. [address] is characterised by the presence of detached bungalows set back from the road within comfortable garden plots.
During my site visit I observed that, whilst many dwellings have been altered and/or extended, such changes generally appear in keeping with the host dwelling and neighbours.
[address], the presence of a wide grass verge, pavements and street trees combines with front gardens, hedgerows, the low height of dwellings and the absence of tall boundary features to the front, to create a green, open and spacious character.
Further to the above, I noted during my site visit that the regular set back of dwellings from the road, the common use of materials and the similar scale, height and hipped appearance of the roofs of bungalows results in a strong sense of uniformity and a satisfying rhythm of development along [address].
The proposed development would greatly extend the size and height of the existing dwelling a way that would greatly alter its appearance. A modest bungalow on a comfortable garden plot would be transformed into a large and bulky dwelling with a gable roof. 10.I find that this would result in an incongruous form of development, out of character with the appearance of other dwellings along [address]. 11.Further to the above, the proposed changes would not appear subservient to the host property, but would overwhelm it and this would result in an unduly dominant form of development that would draw attention to itself and in so doing, would severely disrupt the area’s identified uniform qualities. 12.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Local Plan1 Policies LP17 and LP26; and to Policy 2 of the Saxilby with Ingleby Neighbourhood Plan (2017), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Living conditions 13.The appeal property is located such that the rear elevation of Number [address] faces directly towards the side of the appeal property. During my site visit, I observed that No 47 has a rear facing conservatory and a small rear garden. 14.The proposed development would be set very close to No 47’s conservatory, rear facing windows and rear garden. I find that the height, scale and close proximity of the proposal would be such that it would appear to “loom” above the rear of No 47 in an oppressive manner. 15.I find that this would be to the extent that the proposal would unduly dominate the outlook from that property. 16.Given this, I find that the development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regards to outlook, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Local Plan Policy LP26, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity. Flood risk 17.Flood risk maps show that the appeal property is located within [name] 2. In the absence of any substantive evidence, it is not possible for me to surmise 1 Reference: Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (2017). 2 that the proposed development would be flood resistant and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. 18.Given this, I am unable to conclude that the development would not give rise to an unacceptable flood risk and the proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Local Plan Policy LP14, which together amongst other things, seek to provide for flood protection and resilience.
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
- 19 April 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 March 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3312297
- Application reference
- 144563
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- West Lindsey District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000142
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
- 123 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
- 1 December 2022
- Valid date
- 1 December 2022
- Start date
- 9 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 29 September 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 19 April 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
- 31447
- 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