Appeal 3349076
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
demolition of existing garage and conservatory, construction of a 2 storey side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a 2 storey semi-detached dwelling set back from the highway by a large front garden and driveway. The neighbouring properties have a symmetrical appearance providing visual balance within the street scene. The pair of dwellings are located in the countryside and surrounded by open fields.
The proposed 2 storey side extension would significantly add to the footprint of the original dwelling, adding bulk to the property. It would be out of scale and proportion to the existing dwelling and so would be incompatible with the character and appearance of the host property. The incongruity would be compounded by the fact that the dwelling is part of a pair of semi-detached houses and the proposal would severely compromise the balanced appearance. The proposed materials may tie in with the existing dwelling but this would be insufficient to offset the harm.
The development which would be clearly visible within the street scene would harm the character and appearance of the area. As such it would conflict with Policy GD3 of the Harborough Local Plan (Local Plan) which supports alterations to existing dwellings in the countryside where the development is subordinate in scale and appearance to the existing dwelling. It would also conflict with Policy GD8 of the Local Plan which amongst other things requires new development to respect the context and characteristics of the site, the street scene and the wider local environment to ensure that it is integrated as far as possible into the existing built form.
Section 05
Other Matters
The appellant has referenced what they consider to be an almost identical development to their proposal in support of their case. Other than the case reference number I have been given little information about the scheme in which to draw comparisons with the case before me. In any event, each case is determined on its own merits and that is what I have done.
The appellant has identified a willingness to work with the Council planning department to amend the scheme. This is noted. However, the appeal process is not the appropriate place to evolve a scheme. My decision is based solely on the plans considered by the Council and which interested parties have had an opportunity to comment on in the determination of the application.
I note the appellant wishes to improve the functionality of the property. However, this is a personal gain that is outweighed by the harm to the character and appearance of the area.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons identified, I 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 3546No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 23 October 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 8 October 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3349076
- Application reference
- 24/00444/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Harborough District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000131
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
- 30 July 2024
- Valid date
- 30 July 2024
- Start date
- 3 September 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 June 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 23 October 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
- 58890
- 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