Appeal 3315109
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
described as set back link existing rear and side dormer.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a semi-detached brick-built dwelling set in a typically suburban residential street. The dominant features on the front elevation of the pair are prominent twin gables, which add visual interest to their external appearance. The appeal property shows signs of some past modifications – in the form of a ground floor side extension and a side dormer structure. A rear dormer has also been inserted.
The appellant proposes to link the existing side and rear dormers. In effect, it would comprise a wrap-around roof extension providing more internal accommodation at a high level. I understand that an additional front dormer has been permitted, but that this is yet to be built.
The appellant says that the ‘front view of the house remains unchanged’. That may be so in two dimensions, but the existing side dormer is clearly visible when approaching along the street from the south-east, as would the proposed wrap-around link. To my mind the wrap-around structure, when added to the dormers, would make the enlarged structure appear conspicuously bulky and ugly when viewed from the street, accentuating the already imbalanced appearance of the property in relation to its adjoining partner.
I share the appellant’s view that judgments of this nature are essentially subjective in nature but, to my mind, the proposal, were it built, by reason of its poor design would prove harmful to local visual amenity. The Government attaches considerable importance to design, and the National Planning Policy Framework advises that ‘development that is not well designed should be refused’. I propose to follow that guidance here.
In conclusion, I find that the design of the proposal to be unacceptable, and that the development, if built, would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene. Accordingly, a clear conflict arises with those provisions of policies SDP7 & SDP9 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review, and CS13 of the Southampton City Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy directed to achieving high quality design and preventing development which would cause material harm.
Section 05
Other matters
All other matters referred to in the representations have been taken into account, but no other matter is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations that led me to my conclusions.
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 2949No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 26 April 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 12 April 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3315109
- Application reference
- 22/01270/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Southampton City Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000045
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
- Planning Appeals - Full
- 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
- 52 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
- 20 January 2023
- Valid date
- 20 January 2023
- Start date
- 24 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 29 November 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 26 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
- 31828
- 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