Appeal 3338533
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
extension to property to create additional bedroom and garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a detached two storey dwelling at the end of a short private residential cul-de-sac running off [address].
Policy CS9 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy 2013-2030 (2015) requires high quality design in new development. Policy H9 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021) states that residential extensions will be permitted where they maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the building, street scene, its immediate surroundings and the wider townscape or landscape.
The predominant dwelling type along Green Lane is modest bungalows. The appeal property, by contrast, is a two storey dwelling with a detached garage to the south. The dwelling is laid out on a similar building line to the neighbouring buildings, while the extension would be perpendicular to the host dwelling, creating an L-shaped building.
The size of the extension incorporating the detached garage would be substantive, of similar frontage width to that of the existing dwelling. Despite the lower roof height, the extent of the forward projection from the original frontage would result in the extension being a dominant feature that would not appear subordinate to the scale of the host dwelling. It would also result in a materially larger built form on a plot of limited size. The existing gap between the dwelling and the detached garage provides some visual relief and sense of openness; the infilling of this to the extent proposed would be an overdevelopment of the plot. Moreover, there would be a loss of the openness at the end of the cul-de-sac viewed from the [address] end and approaching down the lane. As such, due to its overall size the extension would be a harmful addition.
I acknowledge that the proposed extension is intended to create additional living space, including for car storage. However, these personal circumstances do not overcome the harm that would result from the proposal.
Therefore, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed extension would have a materially harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to Policy CS9 of the [name] and Policy H9 of the Local Plan Part 2, as described.
Section 05
Other Matters
I acknowledge that the appellant may be frustrated with the process involved in pursuing this proposal. However, this matter is outside the scope of this appeal, which is only concerned with the planning merits of the proposal.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given it is concluded that the appeal should not succeed.
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 154No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 8 May 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 April 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3338533
- Application reference
- 06/23/0783/HH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Great Yarmouth Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000145
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
- 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
- 9 February 2024
- Valid date
- 9 February 2024
- Start date
- 7 March 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 31 January 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 8 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
- 50678
- 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