Appeal 3324842
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
for conversion of loft space into bedroom and bathroom, hipped roof changed to gable end, front and rear dormer windows, 4no. roof windows, internal ground reconfiguration with 3no. sets of bi-folding doors to rear elevation, replacing existing doors and window.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The main issues are the effect of the appeal proposals upon the character and appearance of the area, including upon a Gingko tree which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a detached two storey house at the junction of [address] with [address] with all of its elevations visible within the public realm.
The main range of the dwelling has a four sided hipped roof, albeit with two storey gable projections to three of the four elevations. The main roof would be extended such that gable walls would be created to the north west and south west elevations, with a dormer window proposed at each of the other sides.
I note the examples of where neighbouring properties have been extended, including those with hip to gable and rear dormer conversions, however ultimately each case must be assessed on its own merits. I consider that the proposed roof extension would lead to a bulky and incongruous form of development that would be obtrusive within the street scene and this incongruity would be further accentuated by the proposed dormers that would be highly visible within the respective street scenes.
Therefore, I cannot agree that siting, scale and design of the loft conversion would ensure that it would remain in keeping with the host building; notwithstanding that the external finishing materials would match the existing.
In respect to the protected tree, the canopy is in close proximity to the front elevation facing [address]. However provided that scaffolding were erected in a sensitive manner, and bearing in mind the set-back of the proposed gable on the south west elevation, I consider that the scheme would have unlikely given rise to harm to the tree’s long term heath, if I had been so minded to have allowed the appeal.
Overall however, I consider that the proposed roof extension by reason of its overall scale and bulk would constitute a disproportionate and unsympathetic addition to [site address] which would be harmful to the overall character and appearance of the area. I find the proposal contrary to Policy DM9 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011 – 2033 which stipulates that all new development must achieve a high quality of design and contribute to the distinctive character and amenity of the local area.
Section 05
Conclusion
Having regard to the above and all other matters raised by the appellant, 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
- 7 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
- 3324842
- Application reference
- EPF/0767/23
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Epping Forest District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000072
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 27 June 2023
- Valid date
- 10 July 2023
- Start date
- 21 August 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 June 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 7 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
- 41556
- 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