Appeal 3319848
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
a single-storey outhouse extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the streetscene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a detached dwelling, which is situated in a corner position, within a small modern residential development. Houses are grouped closely together and positioned relatively close to the highway. Relief is provided in some places (including at the appeal property) by narrow grass verges and boundary hedging.
The proposal is to replace an existing outbuilding with a new single-storey outhouse extension, which would provide storage space and an area to park a scooter and tricycle. The extension would be built close to the side boundary and would be clearly visible in the streetscene. The proposal is effectively a resubmission of an earlier application that was refused by the Council in March 2022 (reference: 21/03190/APP). The appeal proposal has been reduced in width from 3m to 2.6m (according to the Council Officer’s report).
The Council contends that the proposal would be an overly prominent feature that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the streetscene. It considers that it would conflict with Policy BE2 of the adopted Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2021 and with Policy WAD1 of the Waddesdon Neighbourhood Plan. These policies seek to ensure (amongst other things) that new development respects the character of its surroundings and the existing pattern of development.
In addition, the Council refers to its [name] – [name], which emphasises the benefits of landscaping within developments. I consider that these policies and guidance accord with paragraph 130 of The National Planning Policy Framework 2021, which requires developments to add to the overall quality of the area and to be visually attractive.
Although the proposed extension would complement the existing dwelling in terms of its design, it would result in built development closer to the road with a reduced area of landscaping, as it is difficult to see how the existing hedging would not be affected by the construction work. Given the site’s prominent position in the streetscene, I consider that the proposal would appear as an unduly prominent feature that would reduce the relatively spacious and verdant character and appearance of this corner plot. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with the Development Plan policies, as referred to in paragraph 5 above.
In reaching my decision, I have given weight to the fact that the proposal would provide a secure location for the storage and parking of a mobility scooter. However, it has not been demonstrated that other alternatives have been explored within the site. Consequently, I conclude that this benefit is outweighed by the proposal’s harmful impact on the streetscene.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal 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 203No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 29 August 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 26 July 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3319848
- Application reference
- 22/03320/APP
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area *
- Planning authority code
- E07000004
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
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- 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
- 4 April 2023
- Valid date
- 4 April 2023
- Start date
- 22 June 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 January 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 29 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
- 37770
- 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