Appeal 3337798
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 “proposed rear dormer addition’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area including the Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
Section 04
Reasons
The area surrounding the appeal site is characterised predominantly by residential properties of traditional design and form. Whilst not situated within a Conservation Area, the site is located within the AONB as well as Landscape Character Area 11 as defined in the Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment (LCA). The Nidderdale AONB Management Plan 2014-2019 and the LCA outlines the special qualities of the AONB identifying the built form villages and towns that relate well to the wooded landscape. It is this traditional built form that relates to the wider AONB setting that contributes positively to the character of the immediate area.
The proposed dormer given its positioning between two existing dormers would appear visually cluttered resulting in the roofscape being dominated by dormer features. There would be gaps between the dormers including to the edge of the roof, however these gaps would not be large, and the proposed dormer would have a contrived appearance that would be visually prominent given its location within the street scene.
The proposed dormer matches the style and proportions of the existing dormers having a pitched roof with gables parallel to the original wall of the appeal property. The proposed dormer would not line up with ground floor windows although it would provide a level of symmetry with the existing dormers. However, the positioning and scale of the proposed dormer being in close proximity to the existing dormers would have a discordant appearance and the proposed dormer would be an incongruous feature that would detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the wider setting of the AONB.
I have had regard to appeal decision1 for two rear dormers. This scheme is not directly comparable to the proposal subject of this appeal, particularly with regards to design, quantity and location.
The proposal includes a single storey projection to the south which further extends the roofline of the appeal property. This matter however does not alter the harm I have found with regards to the proposed dormer.
Accordingly, the proposed dormer would have a harmful effect on the setting, character and appearance of the surrounding area and the AONB. The proposal would not be in accordance with Policies HP3 and GS6 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2020 and the [address] Extensions and [name] which seeks development to not detract from the natural beauty and special qualities of the AONB and its setting, and dormers should not be so numerous that they dominate the roof.
Section 05
Conclusion
The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, which outweigh this finding.
For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should 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 173No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 June 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 June 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3337798
- Application reference
- ZC23/03799/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- North Yorkshire Council
- Planning authority code
- Not recorded
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
- 350 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
- Yes
- 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
- 30 January 2024
- Valid date
- 30 January 2024
- Start date
- 14 February 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 6 December 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 18 June 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
- 52680
- 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