Appeal 3328059
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
4 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
new extension comprising ground floor and upper floor with link to existing house. The extension will match the gable design of the existing house and will match as well the size and proportion. Ground floor external walls to be brickwork to suit existing house and internally blockwork with insulation in between. Upper floor to be studwork, rendered and painted to suit existing house. The roof will be roof tiles to match existing. The link will be studwork, rendered and painted to suit existing house, with natural slate roof. The room adjoining the rear of the proposed extension, to be studwork rendered and painted to suit existing house and with a natural slate lean to roof. Windows to be matched as far as possible to those of existing house and the eave details of the new roof to match those of the existing house. The timber features of the new gable to match those of the existing house.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling.
Section 04
Reasons
I note from the history of the appeal property that it was formerly two properties. It is a non-designated heritage asset. The National Planning Policy Framework states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining a planning application. A balanced judgement will be required, having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.
The appeal property is of traditional design and lies at the end of a row of residential properties in a mixed-use area that includes commercial premises. It is set back from the road in spacious grounds. Important characteristics of the property are the symmetry of the two main front gables and the proportions of the frontage. As such, these features define its significance, and the property makes a positive contribution to the local street scene.
The proposal includes a mock replica of a main front gable linked to the host building via a single-storey side extension. From my observations, due to the design, bulk, height and position of the proposed extension, it would fail to be subordinate to the host dwelling. This would considerably increase the width of the host dwelling and with the addition of both a single-storey and two-storey element, the characteristic symmetry and proportions of the host dwelling would be significantly undermined. The extension would appear as an incongruous addition, to the detriment of the significance of this non-designated heritage asset. This would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the host dwelling.
In reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to all matters raised. For the reasons stated above and having taken a balanced judgement, I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to Policies SP7, LPP36 and LPP52 in the Braintree District Local Plan 2013 – 2033 (2022), particularly where they seek a high standard of design and where they seek to ensure that extensions are subordinate to residential buildings. In addition, the proposal is contrary to policy in the Framework, particularly where the Framework seeks to achieve well designed places.
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 1172No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 30 October 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 October 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3328059
- Application reference
- 23/01596/HH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Braintree District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000067
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
- 18 August 2023
- Valid date
- 5 September 2023
- Start date
- 29 September 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 15 June 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 30 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
- 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
- 41083
- 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