Appeal 3351430
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
4 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
the re-roofing of existing detached garage including construction of dormer to front elevation to form games room.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The main issues are the effect on the living conditions of the residents of [address] with regard to outlook and light; and the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The dwelling has a garage in the rear garden adjacent to the rear boundary that adjoins [address]. Although described as being re-roofed, the proposal would also increase the height of the garage building. The garage is situated adjacent to a recently built annex which is set two metres from the rear boundary. The two buildings would have a similar overall height although the proposed new ridge of the garage would be very marginally closer to the rear boundary. The existing annex roof already dominates the rear garden and views from the rear facing windows of [address]. Although set behind the garage of that property, the proposed changes would result in new development across almost all of the width of the neighbouring rear garden.
The existing garage, being of a lower height, allows for an outlook beyond the approved annex for the neighbours. Extending to the proposed height, despite the set-back of the ridge from the boundary and the narrow gap between the buildings, would be unacceptably imposing and would result in considerable harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring residents due to the reduction in outlook. The position of the proposed building would also increase shading within the neighbouring garden, during late summer evenings, which adds to my main concern. The proposal would be contrary to the amenity requirements of policy Env7 of the [name] 2012 (CS) and policy DM29(b) of www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision: APP/R2330/D/24/3351430 the Hyndburn Development Management - Development Plan Document 2018 (DMP).
The existing garage currently has limited public prominence although it is partially visible in views from the road and across the public open space to the side of the property. Whilst raising the height of it would not result in concerns with regard to its wider public visual impact, the introduction of the large box style dormer, would represent poor design in this context. Despite its relatively limited wider impact, it would not enhance local character or distinctiveness and would detract from it. It would conflict with the design aspirations of DPD policies DM26(2g) and DM10(1a) and CS policy Env6(a&b).
The proposal would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 which seeks a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and is clear that development that is not well designed should be refused.
I have had regard to the submissions of the appellant but have found no matters that suggest that a different conclusion should be reached. As there are no matters that outweigh my concerns, I dismiss the appeal.
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 341No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 2 January 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 December 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3351430
- Application reference
- 11/24/0214
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Hyndburn Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000120
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
- 6 September 2024
- Valid date
- 6 September 2024
- Start date
- 26 September 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 16 July 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 2 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
- 62331
- 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