Appeal 3338532
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
the erection of a two-storey extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect the proposed two-storey extension would have on the character and appearance of the existing property itself and of the local street scene.
Section 04
Reasons
The local street scene is made up of conventional, mainly two-storey, semi-detached or terraced, pitch-roofed dwellings, some with side and rear extensions, but providing a visually regular street frontage. No [address] is an exception to that pattern in as much as it stands as an individual detached property at an angle to the junction of [address] with [address].
Given the particular location of the appeal site, there is nothing objectionable in principle to an extension of innovative and contemporary design, making an individual architectural statement in contrast with the established street scene.
In my judgement though, the scheme put forward in this case fails to achieve that objective. Instead of a contrasting, individual contribution to the host property and the street frontage, the flat-roofed, two-storey extension would be seen as an excessively bulky, dominant and incongruous asymmetric addition, standing forward of the existing dwelling and unbalancing its present simple but harmonious appearance.
It follows that the proposed built development would not fit well into the wider street scene of [address] and [address] and would also have an adverse impact upon its character and appearance.
A little further south is the boundary of the Chippenham Conservation Area (CA) which includes Grade II Listed Buildings (LBs) at Nos 16-17 The Hamlet. However, I consider that the appeal site is sufficiently separated by intervening buildings and distance that the proposed development would have no adverse impact upon the settings of either those LBs or the CA as a whole.
There is no other planning objection, such as on amenity or parking grounds. And there would be some material planning benefit in the enlarged accommodation with respect both to the housing stock and the personal needs of the Appellant and her elderly mother, as well as in making more efficient use of the site.
Overall however, I conclude that the adverse impact on the character and appearance of the existing appeal property and the immediately surrounding street scene, contrary to Core Policy 57 of the adopted [name] on design quality, is the overriding consideration in this appeal. That provision is consistent with national planning policy and the appeal proposal is to be regarded as in conflict with the development plan as a whole. This warrants dismissal of the appeal.
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 1576No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 13 May 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 May 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3338532
- Application reference
- PL/2023/05793
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Wiltshire Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000054
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
- 30 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
- 9 February 2024
- Valid date
- 25 February 2024
- Start date
- 13 March 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 17 November 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 13 May 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
- 50968
- 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