Appeal 3327268
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
Raising of ridge height to facilitate a loft conversion including hip to gable enlargements, two front facing dormers and rear dormer.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main issue
The decision turns on the effect of the roof extension of the dwelling at No. [site address] on the appearance of the street scene.
Section 04
Appeal property and roof extension
No. [site address] is a detached house fronting the north-western side of the road. Housing along both sides of the road is a mixture of designs of mostly detached dwellings. The houses display a variety of sizes, roof types and heights. They include hipped roofs, gabled roofs and roofs with dormer windows.
The roof extension project at No. 36, the subject of this appeal, appeared to have been completed. As the Appellant, [name] said and earlier [name] photography show, his home at No. 36 had a fully hipped roof. A hip to gable conversion has been carried out, with eaves 5.55m high and a ridge 8.91m high. Two dormer windows have been built into the long front roof slope.
Section 05
Considerations
[name] said the hip-to-gable conversion carried out at No. 36 was not incompatible with the existing roofscape and street scene along this section of [address]. I agree that such a conversion can be of considerable utility and could even improve the appearance of a dwelling. I do not share his view, however, that whilst in the present case the dormer windows do not look excessively large, they have been built into an incongruously long and high roof slope that is disproportionally dominant, especially in relation to the dwelling on each side. The result is, as the Council said, that the extension works to the roof have been built to a design that is an unfortunately discordant feature in the immediate street scene.
I consider that the resulting appearance of the extended house at No. [site address] fails to comply with guidance in local and national policy drawn up to ensure the application of good design.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the appeal is 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 19331No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted site visit dates
- 10 October 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3327268
- Application reference
- P/2022/01323
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- East Staffordshire Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000193
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
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 52 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
- 4 August 2023
- Valid date
- 4 August 2023
- Start date
- 31 August 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 June 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 20 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
- 40634
- 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