Appeal 3370538
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
4 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
a first-floor side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding streetscene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a detached two-storey dwelling of traditional design. It lies within a predominately residential area of primarily two-storey detached dwellings, many of which are of a similar design to the appeal property. A strong characteristic of the surrounding streetscene is the gap at first floor level between properties, creating a sense of space above attached garages.
The proposed first floor side extension would be positioned above the existing side garage, set back from the main front façade and with a lower roof than the existing main roof.
From my observations, due to the bulk, height and position of the proposed extension, I consider that it would create an unacceptable sense of enclosure within the surrounding streetscene at first floor level. As such, it would unacceptably adversely affect the character and appearance of the surrounding streetscene, by virtue of the loss of gap at first floor level between properties.
For the above reasons and having taken into account all matters raised, I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding streetscene. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to Policies SP7, LPP1, LPP36 and LPP52 in the Braintree District Local Plan 2013-2033,(2022), particularly where they seek to ensure that development does not have a materially adverse effect on the existing character and appearance of an area. In addition, the proposal would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework where the Framework seeks to ensure good design that is sympathetic to local character. The above policies are broadly in accordance with the Framework on this matter.
It must be acknowledged that at the heart of the Framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It sets out the three overarching objectives which are interdependent.
Turning to the economic objective, some very small benefit would accrue in relation to the construction of the proposal. In terms of the social objective, the proposal would provide additional living accommodation. However, this would not be within a well-designed built environment. I now turn to the environmental objective. For the reasons stated above, I have found that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding streetscene. The harm is so significant in terms of both the social and environmental objectives that taking the three overarching objectives together, the proposal would not constitute sustainable development.
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 1172No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 3 October 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 26 September 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3370538
- Application reference
- 25/00597/HH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Braintree District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000067
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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 5 August 2025
- Valid date
- 5 August 2025
- Start date
- 12 August 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 3 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
- 77381
- 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