Appeal 3345735
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
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Issue
At the site visit I saw that a rear extension had already taken place.
Section 04
Main Issue
The effect of the appeal development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a semi detached brick built bungalow, with an element of painted white render on its façade at the front. The side and rear elevations are brick. It is small in scale and design. It is situated within a cul de sac of very similar properties that also feature white render on the façade.
The appeal development is a single storey rear extension with a flat roof. The extension protrudes beyond the side elevation so that it is visible in the streetscene. The height exceeds that of the eaves of the host dwelling, resulting in a dominant, bulky and disproportionate extension. The materials used are timber and white render. Despite a small element of white render on the front elevation, the majority of the dwelling is of brick material. The addition of white render to the extension visually exacerbates its dominance and poor relationship to both the host dwelling and the character of the surrounding area.
My attention has been drawn to other extensions in the wider surrounding area. I find that these examples relate to dwellings of different design within different contexts. It is also unclear whether these were built recently, or constructed before the current policies requiring good design were adopted. I therefore attach very limited weight to these in my determination of this appeal.
Due to its poor design, prominence in the street scene, scale, height, bulk and materials the appeal development harms the character of the host dwelling and does not respond positively to the local character and context, failing to preserve and enhance the quality of the surrounding area. [name] find that the appeal development conflicts with policy SP7 (Section 1) (2021) and policy SPL3 (Section 2) (2022) of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033, because the extension fails to exhibit architectural quality and has not been well designed.
In addition, the appeal development conflicts with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) due to its poor design and detrimental impact on the character of the surrounding built development.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the above reasons the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations including the Framework that outweigh the harm caused by the appeal development. I therefore 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 7187No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 November 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 October 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3345735
- Application reference
- 24/00380/FULHH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Tendring District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000076
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
- 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
- 5 June 2024
- Valid date
- 5 June 2024
- Start date
- 4 July 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 15 May 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 22 November 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
- 60467
- 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