Appeal 3322516
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 loft conversion with dormer.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property, [site address] is a detached dwelling on [name], a relatively recent large residential development. The property has been previously enlarged by the construction of a single storey rear addition with a lean-to roof.
The appellant proposes the conversion of the existing roof space to provide additional residential accommodation. The proposal includes the insertion of three roof lights in the front roof slope and a large flat roofed box dormer across the rear roof slope.
The Council raise no objection to the proposed roof lights in the front roof slope. From what I have seen and read I have not formed a contrary view. However, due to the the overall width, height and form of the box shaped dormer, its poor alignment with the earlier rear extension, the proposed width, height and misalignment of the proposed windows with the existing first floor windows I consider that the rear dormer as designed would appear as a dominant and incongruous addition.
Furthermore, the only dormers locally are those of neighbouring properties which are well proportioned narrow dormers.
For all these reasons I conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore not accord with the objectives of Policies 32 and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (excluding the South Downs National Park) ([name] 2015) as they relate to, amongst other things, the quality of development which relates sympathetically with the built surroundings.
Section 05
Conclusions
For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, 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 1184No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 11 October 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 September 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3322516
- Application reference
- DC/22/1917
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Horsham District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000227
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
- 15 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
- 19 May 2023
- Valid date
- 19 May 2023
- Start date
- 8 August 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 28 April 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 11 October 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
- 40079
- 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