Appeal 3319139
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 replacement of two existing dormers with a rear dormer loft conversion.
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 host property and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a 2-storey detached house with a single-storey rear addition and a garage to the side. It includes accommodation within the roof space which gains natural light via pairs of small dormers within the front and rear roof slopes. The house is situated on a corner and therefore the rear roof slope is highly visible in views looking along the [address], as is the rear of the house on the opposite side of Norfolk place, which essentially mirrors the roof form of the appeal property.
The property is situated in a residential estate containing houses of similar age and appearance with pitched roofs containing small dormers. These dormers are therefore a prevailing characteristic of the area and positively contribute to the area’s relatively unified appearance.
The proposal would comprise the replacement of the pair of dormers in the rear roof slope with an almost full-width dormer, incorporating a part hipped and part flat roof. Due to its elevated and exposed position this addition would be a wholly alien and incongruous element in the street scene and would be out of keeping with the prevailing roof forms in the area and the appearance of the appeal property.
Due to its siting, size and design I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the host property and the surrounding area. It therefore conflicts with Policies PMD2 and CSTP22 of the [name] and Policies for Management of Development Document (2015) which require development to respond to and respect the character of the area, and to provide a high quality of design. There is also conflict with the [name], [name] & Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2017) (SPD) aims to ensure that the form and scale of extensions is appropriate to the original dwelling and the surrounding development pattern.
The appellant has referred to roof additions in [address], about a 10-minute walk from the appeal property. These rather awkward additions are not directly comparable to the appeal scheme as they comprise pairs of dormers with boxy links between them. In addition, the planning permissions for these additions pre-date the current development plan and the SPD. As each planning application and appeal needs to be considered on its individual merits having regard to its particular context and current planning policy I attribute limited weight to the roof additions in [address].
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
- 16 August 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 July 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3319139
- Application reference
- 22/01497/HHA
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Thurrock Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000034
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
- 23 March 2023
- Valid date
- 23 March 2023
- Start date
- 4 July 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 31 January 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 16 August 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
- 37247
- 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