Appeal 3313613
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 construction of 2 No. front dormers, gable build up and single storey rear/side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The Council has not objected to the proposed single storey rear extension and I note that the appeal plans include a note that this is to be constructed as permitted development. My consideration of this appeal is therefore limited to the proposed front dormers and the associated build-up of the side gable.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of Nos. 26 & 28 [site address] and the [site address] street scene.
Section 05
Reasons
I saw on my visit that No. 26 is one half of a pair of semi-detached bungalows, the other half being No. 28 and having a modestly sized box dormer on its front roof slope. Whilst not highlighted in the officer’s report, the pair of Nos. 26 & 28 are a distinctive part of the street scene also comprising the pairs of Nos. 30 & 32 and 34 & 36. All three pairs are of the same design and external materials, and apart from the aforementioned box dormer their front elevations remain unaltered from their original form, possibly mid [postcode] .
Whilst the existing roof addition at No. 28 detracts from the symmetry of the pair and indeed to some extent the row of six dwellings, it does not significantly alter the pleasingly simple and uncluttered design of the pair which with its similar neighbours makes a positive contribution to the street scene.
The appeal scheme however would have a noticeably different impact. This is because both the pitched roof design and the large size of the dormers would not be in keeping with the size and design of the existing bungalow, particularly the front elevation. And as the Council has pointed out, the dwelling would have a top-heavy appearance that would appear incongruous. Furthermore, when seen together with the small scale and flat roof dormers of the adjoining No. 28, this perception of incongruity would be all the greater.
I acknowledge that there are other dormers of this size and design in the road, but they form part of bungalows that are quite different in both size and design. Bearing in mind the existing characteristics of No. 26, the Council is in my view correct to advise that a smaller flat roof dormer of the type already at No. 28 at would be far more appropriate, albeit I acknowledge that it and the absence of a side gable build-up would not provide the internal accommodation sought by the appellant.
In summary, I find that the appeal proposal would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of Nos. 26 & 28 [site address] and the street scene. This would conflict with Policy CP29 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: [name] 2014; Policy HE2 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: [name] 2006, and with Government policy in Section 12: ‘[name] of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.
The appeal is therefore 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 204No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 6 April 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 March 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3313613
- Application reference
- 59896
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- East Hampshire District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000085
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
- 87 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
- 21 December 2022
- Valid date
- 21 December 2022
- Start date
- 7 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 29 November 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 6 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
- 30951
- 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