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 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
new front extension, additional windows to the side elevation.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
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.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the street scene.
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.
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