Appeal 3330810
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
described as ‘Retention of porch to front of dwelling’. (See paragraph 2 below.)
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The application description refers to the retention of the porch. However, as ‘retention’ is not development under planning legislation I shall deal with the appeal as being for an application for retrospective permission for the erection of the porch.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the porch on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene of [address].
Section 05
Reasons
The officer’s report considers that the porch is too large in terms of both its height and floor area to be in keeping with the dwelling and the [address] street scene. I note that the Council’s objection is shared by third parties including the town council and neighbours.
On my visit I saw that [address] includes a number of semi-detached bungalows of essentially the same design, including very similar front elevations. No. 6 is one half of one of three such pairs on the eastern side of the road with three further pairs more or less opposite on the western side. Although there are other bungalows of a different appearance in the road, the above half dozen dwellings with their uniformity of hipped roofs and low eaves profile make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the locality.
However, the porch with its height that includes a flat roof above the eaves and a significant rectilinear projection from the front wall is an obtrusive and bulky addition entirely unsympathetic to the host dwelling and the street scene. As such it draws the eye and in my view can reasonably be perceived as a harmfully obtrusive development in a prominent position.
The grounds of appeal include photographs of many other additions in the area. However, many of these have little or no similarity to the appeal proposal as regards design or context and I can therefore afford them very little weight in my decision. In any event, they do not justify an addition that is clearly harmful to the character and appearance of both the existing building and [address].
I have noted the appellant’s explanation of why the porch as built is materially different from the approved plans. However, this does not mitigate the harm that has occurred as a result of the development and if professional advice is sought it may well identify remedies in relation to the process of the construction.
Be that as it may, I find that in terms of the main issue in this appeal the porch is unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and [address]. This is in conflict with Policy D1 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 adopted in 2016; Policy EB2 of the Exmouth Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2031 and Section 12: ‘[name] and [name] of Government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework 2023.
The appeal is therefore 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 204No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 January 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 19 December 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3330810
- Application reference
- 23/0891/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- East Devon District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000040
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
- 4 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
- 5 October 2023
- Valid date
- 18 October 2023
- Start date
- 16 November 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 July 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 17 January 2024
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
- 44957
- 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