Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3352734

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

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

the erection of rear and side two storey extensions and enlargement of the S porch.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of rear and side two storey extensions and enlargement of the porch at [site address] , Weymouth [postcode] in accordance with planning application ref.P/HOU/2024/03994 dated 25 March 2024 subject to the following conditions:

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

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following plans numbered: 2904-543/002 rev A, 2904-543/003 rev A & 2904- 543/001rev A.

    No development above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions hereby permitted 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.

    Prior to the extensions hereby permitted being brought into use, the first floor bathroom and en-suite window on the proposed rear south west elevation shall be obscurely glazed to a minimum industry standard of obscurity Level 3, and shall thereafter be retained as such.

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

    The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    The appeal site is situated in a large residential estate within a Defined Development Boundary. It is located at the south west end of [address] orientated so that it looks north eastwards over a turning head and up the Avenue. There is a public right of way alongside the northwestern side of the appeal site and this cuts through to another residential road called [address]. [address] has a variety of differently styled houses, with brick and rendered walls, timber and upvc cladding with a mixture of brown and white upvc double glazed units.

    To the north west of the right of way is [address] and to south east of the appeal site is no.40. No.40 has a large offset rear extension.

    The appeal dwelling is detached with two storeys and an attached single storey garage adjacent to the right of way. Both the house and the garage have pitched roofs. The house has a rear single storey conservatory.

    The appeal scheme seeks to erect a rear and side two storey extension to the property. It would essentially wrap around the main house to provide a store/utility and enlarged lounge, dining, kitchen area on the ground floor with an additional bedroom and ensuite space at first floor.

    The proposal would add bulk and mass to, amongst other things, the garage side of the house with an extension which would continue the ridge height of the main house. Whilst that design can sometimes make a dwelling appear elongated and awkward, in this case the resulting dwelling would not look unduly long or overbearing. There are a number of properties in the immediate area where the frontages and roof ridges are of a similar resulting length (after extension works), and do not, in my view, result in an unduly dominant building or disharmony in the streetscene. For example, 7, 18, 37 and [address] have been extended in a broadly similar fashion. The proposal would be no closer to the right of way than the existing garage and would not result in an unduly wide or dominant structure. The remaining private amenity space in the rear garden would be acceptable and useable. The scheme would be an effective use of urban land.

    The experience of walking on the right of way would be different as the proposed flank wall would be significantly higher and deeper (about 8m deep) in comparison to the existing garage wall which directly abuts the right of way and is single storey only. However, the whole of the flank wall would not directly abut the path and the path itself is not unduly narrow or hemmed in by the flank wall of no.[address] on the north western side. Furthermore, the path would be safe to use, and it would be experienced in an urban context on a large housing estate where a view of flank walls is not uncharacteristic or unexpected.

    The appearance of the rear of the appeal dwelling would also change as the rear extension would take the form of a double gable each with an apex the same height as the main roof ridge. However, the appeal dwelling benefits from an open aspect, whether viewed from the front or the rear. There is no dwelling directly behind it, simply the stub of [address] which gives access to dwellings facing one another at the end of [address]. Consequently, I do not consider that the development would give rise to the appearance of an overdeveloped plot even though the rear extension design would be a prominent one.

    The proposed enlargement of the front porch is modest and would not be harmful.

    I conclude, therefore, that the proposed development would not unduly harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area including views from the public right of way. It would not conflict with policies ENV10 or ENV12 of the [name], Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (adopted 2015) or the policy document of the former Weymouth and Portland Borough Council entitled "[name]: Supplementary Planning Guidance 2002”.

  4. Section 05

    Conditions

    The Council suggested some conditions in the event that the appeal was successful. I have considered those in the light of Planning Practice Guidance. For the avoidance of doubt, there is a condition which ties the carrying out of the development to the approved plans. In order to protect character and appearance of the area, I have imposed a condition which requires the local planning authority to approve materials used on external surfaces.

    In order to protect privacy for occupants of the dwelling, there is a condition requiring the first-floor bathroom and en-suite windows on the proposed rear south west elevation to be obscurely glazed.

  5. Section 06

    Conclusion

    Having considered all representations made, for the reasons given above, I allow the appeal subject to conditions. [name].C.

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 4043No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    27 February 2025Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    10 February 2025 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3352734
Application reference
P/HOU/2024/03994
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Dorset
Planning authority code
E06000059

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
27 September 2024
Valid date
27 September 2024
Start date
18 October 2024
Planning authority decision date
28 August 2024
Appeal decision date
27 February 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
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
65351
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