Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3348948

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 works

One-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

to replace the existing main roof thatch with natural slates.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to replace the existing main roof thatch with natural slates at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 240573, subject to the following conditions.

    The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location plan 3699-PA-LOC; proposed site plan- 3699-PA-LOC; proposed elevations – 3699-PA-LOC.

    No development shall take place until details/samples of the natural slates to be used to replace the existing main roof thatch have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details/samples.

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

    The effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and its surroundings.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    The appeal property is served from a private track and is set apart from the main built-up part of the adjacent village of [site address] within adjacent countryside. There are just a few other homes in the immediate vicinity and the location has a strongly rural, farmyard character. The subject property is a quite imposing dwelling, clad with dark weatherboarding on a brick plinth and a thatched roof. The site is visually well-screened within the surrounding landscape by woodland and hedges.

    The dwelling was granted planning permission on 18 January 1988 as a facsimile of a residential conversion of a building destroyed in the 1987 hurricane, before the permitted works could be completed. The planning permission for the replacement dwelling includes a condition removing permitted development rights for enlargements, improvements or other alterations. This was to retain control over changes to ensure these caused no harm to the amenities of this rural location. The Council’s refusal of this proposal is over the replacement of the thatched roof by slates causing such harm.

    I accept the Council’s case that the rationale for allowing a new dwelling in this rural location was to replicate the outward appearance of the listed building, as converted to a dwelling. Such a design thus addressed the loss of the historic thatched building and justified an exception to policy over the location of new housing in the countryside. However, the replacement dwelling was de-listed in 2014 by English Heritage. The supporting report noted that when listed in 1982 the barn retained a significant proportion of original fabric, but the destruction of the barn in the hurricane of 1987 removed all of this and the replacement building has no architectural and historic interest.

    Policy DM16 of the of the Section 2 Local Plan1 (LPS2) concerns the historic environment. To conserve this, part (ii) of DM16 ensures the protection and enhancement of buildings which, whilst neither listed nor within a conservation area, have a particular local importance of character which it is desirable to keep. However, the dwelling has not subsequently been locally listed by the Council, which might otherwise have deemed it a non-designated heritage asset. Consequently, I give limited weight to any conflict with LPS2 Policy DM16 in respect of heritage harm.

    The existing house no longer retains any significant degree of the original fabric which provided the special architectural and historic interest justifying its previous listing. LPS2 Policy DM15, concerning design more generally, is therefore more applicable in this case. This requires a high standard of design of all development, to respect and, where possible, enhance the character of the site, its context and surroundings including in terms of materials.

    There are no strongly unifying characteristics to design in this area. The building once occupying this site was thatched and the current house provides a pastiche of this. The replacement of this thatch with natural slates would be no less in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing house or its surroundings. The proposal would not detract from the design quality of this dwelling, which would remain of a suitably rural, vernacular character. Replacing the thatching with natural slates, would preserve the quality of the design of this house and satisfy LPS2 Policy DM15.

  4. Section 05

    Conclusion

    The replacement of the thatching on the main roof of this dwelling, and its replacement with natural slates, would preserve its character and appearance and that of the immediate surroundings. Therefore, this proposal would comply with LPS2 policies DM15 and DM16 and the development plan read as a whole. 1 Colchester Borough Local Plan 2017-2033 Section 2, adopted July 2022.

    In addition to the standard three-year time limit for commencement, a condition is required tying the permission to the submitted plans to define the development allowed. In the interests of the satisfactory appearance of the finished development, a condition is necessary for the slates to accord with an agreed sample or details. Subject to these conditions, and for the reasons given, the appeal is allowed.

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 997No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    3 January 2025Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    17 December 2024 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3348948
Application reference
240573
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Colchester Borough Council
Planning authority code
E07000071

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
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
26 July 2024
Valid date
26 July 2024
Start date
30 August 2024
Planning authority decision date
7 May 2024
Appeal decision date
3 January 2025

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
62366
First seen
20 August 2026 at 14:25
Last seen
20 August 2026 at 16:28
Removed from release
Not recorded
Record created
20 August 2026 at 14:25
Record updated
24 August 2026 at 16:21