Appeal 3321952
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
an extension to domestic dwelling, extend at rear and side of property to create open-plan kitchen and orangery to the ground floor and additional 2 bedrooms to the first floor above garage.
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 two-storey dwelling, which is situated on a modern residential estate. House types in the vicinity of the appeal site vary and a number have been altered and extended, including first-floor additions. Some of these have been brought to my attention by the appellant.
The proposal is to extend the property in the manner described in the heading above. The first-floor extension would be constructed over an existing garage which projects in front of the main wall of the property. It would have a gabled roof facing [address].
The Council contends that the first-floor extension would be an incongruous addition to the streetscene, which would fail to show subservience to the existing dwelling. It argues that the proposal would conflict with Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 and with [name] C28 and C30 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996. These policies seek (amongst other things) to ensure that the design of new development is of high quality; is sympathetic to the character of the local area; and that extensions to dwellings are compatible with the scale of the dwelling and the character of the streetscene. I consider these to be consistent with paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (The Framework).
The appellant has referred to other extensions in the locality, which I viewed at my site visit. However, I am not persuaded that they are comparable. Whilst the extension at number [address] is similar to the appeal proposal, that property is located on a private drive and it does not appear unduly prominent in the streetscene. The property at number [address] is a different design, whilst the first-floor extensions at numbers 39 and its neighbouring property are set-back from the front walls of the dwellings. Number 36 has also been extended, but it is positioned on a corner plot and its impact on the streetscene is not comparable to the appeal property.
The appeal property is situated on a section of [address] where there is a general consistency to the building line. The proposed extension would project out in front of the main part of the dwelling and it would also project in front of the neighbouring dwellings. I consider that it would appear unduly prominent and incongruous in the streetscene. Accordingly, it would conflict with the provisions of the Development Plan and The Framework, as referred to in paragraph 5 above.
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
- 3321952
- Application reference
- 23/00519/F
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Cherwell District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000177
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
- 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
- 11 May 2023
- Valid date
- 20 May 2023
- Start date
- 15 June 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 24 April 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
- No
- 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
- 37774
- 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