Appeal 3357928
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
2 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
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Reasons
The proposal would extend the bungalow well beyond the front building line established by No’s 18-24. Existing forward extensions, referred to within the evidence, were not observed within the immediate area of the appeal site. Instead, during my visit, the character was seen to be relatively uniform without prominent forward projections. As such, the proposal would be out of character with surrounding development and not add to the quality of the area. Consequently, the proposal would be obtrusive within this open plan estate, despite the small front walls and landscape planting noted within some local frontages.
The proposed extension’s design takes considered cues from the existing dwelling and would be proportionate to it, with matching materials. However, these factors would not outweigh the identified harm to the streetscene. Furthermore, whilst the amended scheme has lowered its ridge height, this revision has only marginally reduced the proposal’s overall dominance.
The scheme would protect neighbour’s privacy and would not materially reduce the plot’s access to outdoor space. However, an absence of harm in these respects can only be considered as neutral factors in the planning balance. The National Planning Policy Framework supports sustainable development including development being of good design. [name] have found the proposal would not be sympathetic to local character, the Framework would not provide support for the scheme.
The proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area and be contrary to the policies cited in the decision notice. The scheme would be contrary to the development plan as a whole and nothing outweighs this.
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 390No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 2 October 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 18 September 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3357928
- Application reference
- PA24/05365
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Cornwall Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000052
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
- 20 December 2024
- Valid date
- 20 December 2024
- Start date
- 22 January 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 October 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 2 October 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
- 77258
- 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