Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

Appeal 3356456

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

new front extension, additional windows to the side elevation.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. Section 03

    Preliminary Matters

    A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework was published on 12 December 2024. The content of the revised Framework has been considered but in light of the facts in this case it does not alter my conclusion.

  3. Section 04

    Main Issue

    The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the street scene.

  4. Section 05

    Reasons

    The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling in a residential cul-de-sac of similar dwelling types and bungalows. The surrounding area is residential in character.

    Policy DM3.8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development [name] (2015), Policy 2 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan (2024) and Policy 4 of the Wymondham Neighbourhood Plan (2023) all require high quality design from development and protection and enhancement of locally distinctive character.

    The two-storey dwellings in [address] are largely of uniform character and appearance, with predominantly unaltered front elevations. The bungalows within the close are also similarly unaltered. As such, there is a strong degree of uniformity of character and appearance within [address], with similar built forms reflecting the original planned design and layout of properties. The only exception is No 4 next to the appeal property, which retains the same two-storey building line as No 2 but has a single-storey projection to the front.

    The proposed front extension would be of subordinate height to the host dwelling and of similar depth as the projection to the rear of the property. While it would be a proportionate addition to the host dwelling seen in isolation, within the established street scene it would result in a substantive and bulky projection that would extend well beyond the characteristic two-storey front building line of properties. Consequently, it would harmfully undermine the uniformity that is a positive feature of the character and appearance of properties within the close.

    The front extension would also reduce the openness within the street scene close to the junction with Lime Tree Avenue, resulting in a greater sense of enclosure at the entrance to [address] seen from the adjoining road. [name] 2 has a relatively large hedge to its front boundary, this would not fully obscure the extension and in any case, it is not a permanent feature that should be relied upon to mitigate the harmful effects.

    I acknowledge that the extension to No 4 is forward of the established building line, but this is single-storey and therefore does not have the same effects described above in terms of the proposed two-storey extension.

    The appellants draw attention to a number of other examples of developments that are considered comparable to the appeal proposal. However, these are not part of the same street scene as the appeal property and, therefore, these other developments do not overcome the harmful effects that would result from the proposed extension.

    Accordingly, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed extension would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the street scene. It is, therefore, contrary to Policy DM3.8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development [name], Policy 2 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan and Policy 4 of the Wymondham Neighbourhood Plan, as described.

  5. Section 06

    Conclusion

    For the reasons given the appeal is 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 154No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    10 March 2025Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    25 February 2025 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3356456
Application reference
2024/1623
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
South Norfolk District Council
Planning authority code
E07000149

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
No
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
29 November 2024
Valid date
29 November 2024
Start date
12 December 2024
Planning authority decision date
16 October 2024
Appeal decision date
10 March 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
65961
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