Appeal 3319809
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
8 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
for the erection of a single storey side extension, alterations to fenestration and extension to roof with installation of 2 x side dormers.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure
The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons for the Recommendation
A long residential road, [address] has a mix of house types with ‘pockets’ of similar properties. No 167 is within a group of similar bungalows which have a generally consistent appearance in terms of the scale and massing of the roof structure, and overall built form. This group of bungalows have hipped or half-hipped roofs to the front elevation which form a unified appearance, contributing positively to the character and appearance of the area. The property itself has an evenly balanced front elevation, with the door positioned in line with the ridge point of the roof.
The proposals would create a break in the pattern of roof structures and overall massing within the group. The change from a hip to gable on the principal elevation particularly, combined with the roof ridge alteration, resulting in the door and windows appearing off-set, would unbalance the building and reduce the quality of the street scene’s consistency.
As such, the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would not comply with Policy CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2012) or the provisions of [name]: A Design Guide for Householders (2008). These policies and additional guidance seek to ensure that, amongst other things, development should be designed to respect the site and its surroundings through its scale, density, layout, siting, character, and appearance.
Section 06
Other Matters
Nos 170 and [address] are a distance from the appeal site, and form part of a different ‘pocket’ of properties which are less consistent. Most notably, the two gable-fronted dwellings are opposite traditional two storey buildings, and therefore have less of an impact. Furthermore, they do not have the same expanse of bare wall as proposed, nor do they appear unbalanced in terms of features on the principal elevation. Other examples provided to me are a greater distance from the appeal site and in some instances are not on [address]. As discussed above, [address] has pockets of properties with differing characters, therefore the examples provided do not have a bearing on my recommendation.
Section 07
Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations before me worthy of sufficient weight to indicate otherwise. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.
Section 08
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis I dismiss the appeal.
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 1895No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 July 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 June 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3319809
- Application reference
- 7-2022-9479-C
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
- Planning authority code
- E06000058
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
- 40 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
- 3 April 2023
- Valid date
- 3 April 2023
- Start date
- 5 June 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 February 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 27 July 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
- 36255
- 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