Appeal 3320359
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
two pitched roof front dormers to loft.
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 area.
Section 04
Reasons
The site is located at [site address] and contains a two storey semi-detached dwelling, where the adjoining neighbour is symmetrical in appearance. The wider street scene is populated by a significant number of symmetrical pairs of dwellings arranged in a similar manner. Another defining feature of the street scene is the general lack of altered roofscapes. Altogether, the street’s general uniform appearance makes a positive contribution to the area.
The proposal would introduce two pitched roof front dormers within the existing roofscape. This would be a significant departure from a street scene defined by dwellings with generally unaltered roofscapes. Moreover, the scale of the dormers would not be subservient in the roofscape of the host dwelling. Altogether, the proposal would be discordant in its existing context and detract from the street scene’s general uniform appearance.
I note the appellant’s contention that dormers have been approved in a development opposite. Nonetheless, the development opposite is visually separate from the context within the which the proposal needs to be assessed. Therefore, I have given these other dormers limited weight in my decision.
The appellant also contends that there are other dwellings along [address] with front dormers. However, no evidence is provided, and I did not see anything on my site visit to change my assessment of the street’s general uniform appearance and unaltered roofscapes.
Overall, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and conflict with Policy DE1 of the Swindon Borough Local Plan 2015 and the Council's Residential Extensions & Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2011. Among other things, these seek to ensure high standards of design are incorporated into all types of development, including aspects of scale.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given, the appeal is 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 415No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 August 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 12 July 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3320359
- Application reference
- S/HOU/22/1791/JAAB
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Swindon Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000030
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
- 0 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
- 14 April 2023
- Valid date
- 14 April 2023
- Start date
- 4 July 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 1 March 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 10 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
- 36946
- 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