Appeal 3370810
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
5 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
Proposed loft dormer and alterations to the existing roof.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is located in a suburb of the city, residential in character. The houses along [address] are in the main made up of a variety of detached and semi-detached houses. Some share the same design characteristics although there is no recognised consistency or continuity to the design of dwellings along the street scene.
Numbers 21-27 are the same house typology that sit together as a group within the wider street scene. They are visually attractive houses due to their design, and the roof configuration made up of interlocking hipped roofs is both traditional and characteristic to this style of houses.
From what I could tell, the appeal site has been previously extended to the side, two storeys. The appellant intends to extend the dwelling to the rear by way of a large flat roofed dormer that would encompass most of the roof plane. The main host roof would also be extended to the east side to remove the hipped roof and replaced by a new gable end design.
Although the appellant contends that the proposed gable is not part of the proposal before me, it is included on the submitted plans and forms part and parcel of the proposal as a whole. Therefore, I have included it within my overall consideration of the scheme.
The rear dormer would not be widely visible from outside the site and largely only visible in private views from other residential dwellings. A new gable end is proposed to replace the traditional-style hipped roof to one side of the host dwelling. A gable end in this position would not articulate harmoniously with the traditional hipped roof style that is consistent to the dwelling, and the group of houses of a similar style it sits within. The gable end would appear as an incongruous feature and imbalance the dwelling. Overall, it would appear out of character with its traditional characteristics akin to this style of dwelling. It would detrimentally alter its appearance and therefore in this context would harm the symmetry with the other houses within the group, and harming the character and appearance of the street scene.
The appellant compares the proposal to other houses along [address]. I could see that some dwellings have been altered by way of side extensions and gable end extensions. The precise details of these extensions are not before me to comment. In any case, most of these examples are not precisely the same house type as the proposal before me, nor do exactly the same circumstances apply. I apply only moderate weight to these examples.
To conclude on this main issue, the proposal would not comply with the design objectives of Policy 10 of the [name] and Policies DE1 and DE2 of the Local Plan Part 2.
Section 05
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 43572No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 March 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 13 March 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3370810
- Application reference
- 25/00630/PFUL3 (PP-13907125)
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Nottingham City Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000018
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
- 10 August 2025
- Valid date
- 12 August 2025
- Start date
- 12 August 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 18 March 2026
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
- No
- 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
- 86074
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21