Appeal 3342122
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
for a front first floor extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The effect of the proposal on (i) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, and (ii) the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling at No. 143 Fairfields, with particular regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight.
Section 04
Character and Appearance
The appeal property is a modest two-storey brick built terraced dwelling within a large residential estate characterised by similar two-storey terraced dwellings with small window openings, forward single storey garages and open frontages. There is a high degree of uniformity of design and appearance retained throughout the estate.
The appeal proposal would introduce a first floor extension with a flat roof. It would protrude from the front elevation at first floor level, above part of the front facing garage, and extend above the open garden area across the front of the appeal dwelling. A corner post within the garden would support the external front corner of the extension. The extension would include a finish comprising render and Eternit slate materials. It would be sited approximately 0.58cm from the boundary with No. 143 Fairfields.
The appeal proposal would by virtue of its design and appearance be highly visible within the street scene. In particular due to the facing materials and flat roof design it would appear as a substantial, incongruous addition at odds with the identified character of the host dwelling and that of the surrounding area.
In conclusion, I find that the appeal proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.
Consequently the appeal proposal would conflict with policies COM01 and GEN02 of the Breckland Local Plan (2023) (LP), because the proposed extension fails to exhibit architectural quality and has not been well designed.
Section 05
Living Conditions
The appeal proposal would be very close to No. 143, and with its height and position forward of the host dwelling at first floor level it would be unduly overbearing for the occupants of No. 143. This would cause a harmful loss of outlook.
My attention has been drawn to a shadow study. However the information is not sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that the size and height of the first floor extension so close to No. [address] to an unacceptable loss of sunlight and daylight. 10.I conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling at No. 143, with particular regard to loss of sunlight and daylight and outlook. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with policies COM03 of the LP and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as it fails to provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
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 7187No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 6 December 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 November 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3342122
- Application reference
- 3PL/2023/1205/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Breckland Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000143
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
- 1
- 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
- 8 April 2024
- Valid date
- 8 April 2024
- Start date
- 14 May 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 24 January 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 6 December 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
- 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
- 61231
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21