Appeal 3372366
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
the demolition of conservatory and erection of single-storey front and side extensions.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The appellants’ agent states that an amended proposal for a different design was submitted to the Council. However, that proposal was not determined by the Council, nor have I been furnished with any amended plans. Notwithstanding, the appeal process should not be used as a mechanism for amending proposals and, therefore, I have determined this appeal based on the plans that were determined by the Council.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a single-storey bungalow, which is situated within a row of ribbon development that fronts [address]. Other properties along [address] vary in terms of their age, scale and appearance and some have been altered and extended since they were originally built.
The proposal is to demolish an existing and relatively small conservatory at the front of the property and construct flat-roofed single-storey front and side extensions. The extensions would provide two additional bedrooms, a bathroom and an enlarged garage. I have no doubt that the extensions would enhance living conditions within the property for the appellants.
The Council considers that the design of the proposal is ‘poor’ and that the development would have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the area. As such, the Council states that it would conflict with Policies 1, 2, and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019 (LP). Of these, I consider Policies 2 and 3 to the most relevant, as they require (amongst other things) for development to have regard to the character and appearance of the area and the design to be of a high quality that would improve the quality of an area. These policies accord with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (NPPF), which contains similar provisions.
The appellants state that the proposed side extensions could be constructed as Permitted Development. Whilst that may be the case, my main concern is the design and appearance of the front extension. Although it would be positioned some 7m from the highway, it would be highly visible from [address], and its box-like appearance would appear incongruous and detrimental to the appearance of both the appeal dwelling and the streetscene. In my opinion, a front extension of a different design could be acceptable, but this would require further discussion with the Council. As submitted however, the proposal would conflict with the provisions of both the LP and the NPPF, as referred to above.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, it is concluded 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 203No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 November 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 27 October 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3372366
- Application reference
- H20-0417-25
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- South Holland District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000140
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
- 3 September 2025
- Valid date
- 3 September 2025
- Start date
- 4 September 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 27 June 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 18 November 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
- 79902
- 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