Appeal 3367876
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
retrospective front porch, but add a gable roof over the existing flat roof.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
The front porch has already been built and the proposal intends to construct a pitched roof over it with a front gable.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the dwelling and the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
The proposal relates to this 2 storey, semi-detached house which is located in a residential area. The area contains houses of similar styles and a number of the designs are repeated throughout the area. Prior to the construction of the appeal proposal, the house had a modest front porch, along with many others in the area.
The proposal has enlarged the porch considerably and it is now within a very short distance of the pavement. It projects well beyond any other porches in the immediate area and is prominent within the street-scene. Many other properties in the area have modest front projections in the form of porches and some incorporating the front part of the garage. None that I observed has the same prominence or visual impact that the proposal has.
I consider that the porch represents a disproportionate addition to the front of this property. It extends well beyond the adjacent bay and considerably further than other porches in the area. It has a harmful and dominating visual effect and fails to harmonise with the design and appearance of the existing house and its neighbours. The proposed alterations to the roof would do very little to resolve the harmful effects of the porch.
The appellant states that the Council often gives permission for front extensions of different sizes. However, the appellant offers no examples to support that statement and I saw no similar examples in the surrounding area.
Taking account of the above, the development is in conflict with Policy DE1 of the Swindon Borough Local Plan. In addition, it conflicts with the advice contained in the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above the appeal should 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 42798No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 7 October 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 8 September 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3367876
- Application reference
- 25/0517
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Swindon Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000030
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
- 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
- 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
- 18 June 2025
- Valid date
- 24 June 2025
- Start date
- 24 June 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 28 May 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 7 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
- 77524
- 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