Appeal 3358180
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
for a ground floor wraparound extension, first floor side extension, internal alterations and all associated works.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
Since the planning application the subject of this appeal was determined, a new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) has been published (12 December 2024) and consequently amended on 7 February 2025. There has been no material change to National planning policy in respect of householder appeals and therefore I consider that it was not necessary to refer back to the parties. I have determined the appeal on this basis.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a semi-detached house in a residential estate in a slightly staggered arrangement to its immediate neighbours. [address] has a subordinate two storey side extension with a single storey lean-to roof over a front porch and garage; the proposal would adjoin it, such that a terracing effect would occur.
Whilst in itself the proposed extension would appear subservient in its overall scale and relation to the host dwelling, it cannot viewed in isolation. I acknowledge that the staggered building line of the properties would reduce the appearance of a terracing effect, but nonetheless, it would completely erode the current spacing between the appeal dwelling and no.34. Setting the extension away from the boundary as required by the Borough Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document would make a meaningful difference in the gap between the buildings when viewed from the street; however the end result would unlikely provide adequate internal living accommodation at such a resultant width.
I acknowledge the appellant’s concern as to the reasonableness of allowing the extensions to no.34, however that proposal would have been assessed on its own merits and nonetheless it forms the built context to the site. [name] consider that combined with the appeal proposal it would give rise to an incongruous form of development that would appear cramped, contrary to the prevailing pattern of development within the locality and therefore harmful to the character and appearance of the area.
I find the proposal is contrary to Policies CP1 and CP3 of the Wokingham Borough Local Development Framework Adopted Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010) which together require development proposals to maintain or enhance the high quality of the environment whilst ensuring that they are of an appropriate mass layout, built form height and character to the area, whilst ensuring that proposals have responded to design codes, such as the Wokingham Borough Design Guide SPD which seeks to ensure development integrates with the character of the area.
Section 06
Conclusion
Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal 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 297No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 7 April 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 24 March 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3358180
- Application reference
- 242124
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Wokingham Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000041
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
- 35 m²
- 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
- No
- 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
- 24 December 2024
- Valid date
- 24 December 2024
- Start date
- 7 January 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 October 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 7 April 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
- 67621
- 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