Appeal 3367717
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
8 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
single storey front, side and rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of single storey front, side and rear extension at [site address] , [name], Dorset, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/HOU/2024/03895 and the plans submitted with it.
Section 03
Application for costs
An application for costs was made by [name] and [name] against Dorset Council and this is the subject of a separate Decision.
Section 04
Procedural matter
The development the subject of this appeal has been carried out and completed.
Section 05
Main issue
The main issue in this case is its effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 06
Reasons
[site address] is a two storey detached house located in a short spur off a cul-de-sac. A single storey extension including a garage, a utility room and other rooms has been constructed along the east side of the house. The garage element projects forward of the front elevation of the main house at a slight angle to the edge of the highway at a distance of between 0.5m and 0.65m from that edge. The side elevation of the extension is set a small distance away from the brick boundary wall at No. 8 to the east which allows the guttering to be within the curtilage of No. 9.
Planning permission was granted on 9 June 2023 (P/HOU/2023/01955) for an extension the same as the present one in all respects except that the site plan showed it to be approximately 500mm further from the highway. There were no objections from the Town Council, the Highway Authority or neighbours.
I consider that since the overall size and external appearance of the extension and its relationship with the neighbouring property, No. 8, are as previously approved, it is acceptable in terms of its design and consistent with policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, which relates to design matters.
The discrepancy between the distance from the highway indicated in the previously approved plans and the extension as built is such that the extension is approximately 0.5m-0.65m from the highway rather than approximately 1.2m-1.35m. I consider that the difference in visual impact is minimal.
I conclude that the extension is not harmful to the character and appearance of the area and that it is consistent with local plan policy HE2.
Section 07
Other matters
Concerns were raised that the extension would harm highway safety. This part of [address] is not an adopted highway and the road itself is relatively wide. There are two properties towards the end of the cul-de-sac beyond the entrance to No. 9. There is a high brick boundary wall between Nos. 8 and 9 which projects to the edge of the highway at that point. This obscures visibility for road users emerging from No. 8 to a greater extent than the extension. In view of the small number of users and the likelihood that vehicles would be moving at slow speeds, I consider that the extension results in no harm to highway safety. I note that the Highway Authority has raised no objection.
For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.
Section 08
Conditions
The development has been completed and no conditions are necessary.
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.
Costs Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 764No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 29 August 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 August 2025 (page 1)
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 764No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 29 August 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 August 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3367717
- Application reference
- P/HOU/2024/03895
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Dorset
- Planning authority code
- E06000059
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
- Unknown
- 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
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 16 June 2025
- Valid date
- 16 June 2025
- Start date
- 19 June 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 2 April 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 29 August 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
- Yes
- 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
- 75506
- 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