Appeal 3318137
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
install conservatory/porch to the front of the property.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and streetscene.
Section 04
Reasons
[site address] is a modern detached dwelling located in a residential area comprised of properties of a similar age but with variations in design. The frontages to the dwellings differ with some having canopies and limited infill extensions. The neighbouring properties in [address] respect a well-defined front building line. [address] is an exception as it has a small front extension built in brick with a single front window.
The proposed conservatory/porch would be single storey with a hipped roof and projecting forward by around 2.2 m. Its form, design and use of materials would be uncharacteristic of frontage development in [address] because of its scale, design and the amount of proposed glazing. It would also project beyond the overall building line.
The front elevation of the proposed conservatory/porch would be largely hidden from view because of the high boundary hedging. Although there are no proposals to remove the hedging it would restrict the outlook from the proposed conservatory/porch. There is no guarantee that any future occupants of the property would retain the hedging or not significantly reduce its height. I fail to agree with the appellant that if the boundary treatment was removed in future the extension would not have a detrimental impact. This is because the scale, design and use of materials would be out of keeping and inappropriate having regard to the context set by the front elevations of other dwellings in [address].
Section 05
Conclusion
I conclude that the proposed conservatory/porch would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the building and street scene because of its scale, design and use of materials. It would conflict with policy 10 1. c) of the Gedling Borough Council Aligned Core [name] 1 which indicates that development should be designed to reinforce local characteristics. It would not comply with policy LPD 43 a. of the Gedling Borough Local Planning Document Part 2 which seeks to ensure that the appearance of proposals is in keeping with the surrounding character in terms of height, built form and general design. It would also fail to comply with the design objectives of part 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
I have taken all other matters raised into account, including the lack of objection from neighbours. However, 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 108No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 26 June 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 5 June 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3318137
- Application reference
- 2022/0597
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Gedling Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000173
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 8 March 2023
- Valid date
- 8 March 2023
- Start date
- 11 April 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 6 January 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 26 June 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
- 34610
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21