Appeal 3321201
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
6 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
single and two storey flat roof extensions to front and single two storey bay windows to rear.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site relates to a 2 storey detached house at the end of a cul de sac. It has a shallow pitched roof, a flat roofed canopy porch at the front and a single storey flat roofed side projection that appears to be a store/utility room, the back of which adjoins the neighbour’s garage. House designs within the Close vary. Several have 2 storey gable wings projecting from their front elevation, others have single storey projecting porches or front rooms. Front gardens extend to the pavement edge without boundary walls giving the Close an open character.
The West Oxfordshire Design Guide (2016) (WODG) advises that extensions which obscure or significantly alter the form or character of the original property are unlikely to be supported. The proposed front extensions would comprise 3 flat roofed elements protruding at different depths and reaching across most of the front elevation. Two would be 2 storeys with their roof level with the main eaves and the third would be single storey. They would dominate the house substantially altering its appearance. The flat roofs would be out of keeping with the main pitched roof. Whereas front projecting elements on other houses nearby harmonise with their host property, in terms of their roof pitch or subordinate scale, the proposed development would appear unsympathetic and in combination with the rear extension excessive in terms of its scale. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies OS2, OS4 and H6 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031(2018), the WODG and the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) which require high quality design of an appropriate scale that enhances the character of the area.
Section 05
Other matters
I have had regard to the examples of house designs provided by the appellant, including at [address] and 3 [name] for which extracts of the ground floor plans were provided. Whilst the examples included a mix of roof types, including some with flat roofed elements, they were either the original unaltered design, or where there were alterations they integrated well with the host building, rather than obscuring its original form, as is the case with the proposed development. They are not therefore comparable with the appeal proposal. In any case, I have come to my own view regarding the development rather than relying on the approach the Council may have taken elsewhere.
I understand that the proposed development would improve the building’s energy performance and enable the appellants’ family to stay when visiting. However, these matters do not outweigh the harm that I have identified.
Section 06
Conclusion
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 128No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 6 November 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 23 October 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3321201
- Application reference
- 22/03430/HHD
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- West Oxfordshire District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000181
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
- 0.0321 hectares
- Floor space
- 71 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
- 28 April 2023
- Valid date
- 19 July 2023
- Start date
- 19 September 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 February 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 6 November 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
- 41474
- 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