Appeal 3324225
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
for a single storey side extension with flat roof with a pitched tiled perimeter.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a detached chalet bungalow and its main area of private amenity space is to the western side which is adjacent to the junction of [address] and [address]. The space is bounded by close-boarded fencing along the back edge of the public footway, with an existing attached garage projecting from the western flank elevation which would be replaced by
Section 05
the appeal proposal.
The proposed extension would have an eaves height that matches the host dwelling and by virtue of its flat roof concealed behind a dummy pitched roof, it would be of a low height, although of a significant width. On balance, the view from [address] would be acceptable. However the proposal cannot be assessed in isolation with the rear and western side elevation of the appeal dwelling also being visible from [address]. The garage element currently projects beyond the front elevation of [address], to the north, but the proposed extension would project significantly more so, in close proximity to the western fence and would be prominent when viewed from the north. I consider that it would appear as an incongruous addition to the street scene which would be accentuated by its depth mirroring that of the host dwelling.
[name] note that the submitted street scene drawing does not identify the view from the north, i.e. the views afforded by images 3 and 4 of the appellant’s statement; and whilst I accept that the images were taken from [name], I concur from my site visit that these views are not materially different when standing on the public highway.
I do not dispute that the proposed design is a side extension. Nonetheless by virtue of the site’s location at a junction of two roads where there is a change in elevation, one would be looking down onto the extension from [address], and from which there would be a clear and prominent incursion to the notional building line created by [address] and the dwellings due north of it. I consider that the proposed extension in its current form would result in an incongruous form of development that would be harmful to the character and appearance to the street scene contrary to Policy CS41 of the Adopted Bournemouth Local Plan: [name] 2012 which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that all development is well designed and of high quality and that development should through its scale, layout and siting respect the site and its surroundings.
Section 06
Conclusion
Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude 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 297No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 5 September 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 August 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3324225
- Application reference
- 7-2023-7751-D
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
- Planning authority code
- E06000058
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
- 34 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
- 15 June 2023
- Valid date
- 15 June 2023
- Start date
- 20 July 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 16 May 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 5 September 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
- 38132
- 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