Appeal 3353009
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
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
described as proposed single storey front infill extension and first floor side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and area in general.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a detached property within a predominantly residential area. Properties vary in terms of design and form within the area.
The Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Design Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (the SPD) highlights that extensions should remain subservient to the original building and should not overwhelm the property. The SPD considers that in order to be subservient side extensions should be set back from the front of the original building. The proposed side extension is set back from the front of the property and has a lowered roofline.
The SPD also states that extensions which close an important gap within the street scene or lead to a terracing effect will not be accepted. Confirming that the extent of the gap should be determined by the pattern of development in the area, however, should not be less than 1m wide in urban areas and a greater space may be required on the edge of towns or in rural areas in order to preserve the open character of an area.
An Inspector noted in a previous appeal decision1 that the appeal site is on the edge of the village of [site address] where a distance of greater than 1m would be appropriate. The Inspector considered that an essential feature of 1 APP/J0405/A/09/2098662 the character of the immediate locality is a sense of spaciousness provided by the relatively low density of development, highway verges and generous front building lines to properties, noting that the gaps between properties are in general well over 2-3m and more in some cases. I agree.
I observed during my site visit that the gap between properties further along [address] reduces, notwithstanding this these properties are predominantly smaller properties where the gap between properties follows the prevailing pattern of built form.
The single storey front extension which would physically link the existing garage to the property would be a prominent addition to the property. The combination of the proposed extensions along with the existing form of the property would not respect the site.
I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host property and area in general. There is conflict with Policy BE2 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2013-2033 (2021) which seeks amongst other things for developments to respect the character of site and surroundings, complementing local distinctiveness and vernacular character of the locality.
There is also conflict with the Framework which seeks amongst other things to ensure developments are of good design.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the above reasons I conclude that this 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 126No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 December 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 18 November 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3353009
- Application reference
- 24/02504/APP
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area *
- Planning authority code
- E07000004
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
- 2 October 2024
- Valid date
- 2 October 2024
- Start date
- 23 October 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 1 October 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 10 December 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
- 61565
- 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 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21