Appeal 3374400
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
demolition of existing garage and construction of double storey side extension. Alterations to front porch.
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 area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is one of a group of two pairs of semi-detached properties. The pairs of dwellings are of a matching design, with central two-storey front gables and hipped catslide roofs to the sides. The properties have not been previously extended to the side. This uniformity of design creates a pleasant and distinctive appearance which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.
The proposed side extension would replicate the central two-storey front gable. However, the extension would add significant additional bulk and massing to the side of the property which would not be subservient to the existing building. Furthermore, it would disrupt the symmetry, form and rhythm of the group of properties, detracting from their distinctive appearance.
My attention has been drawn to planning permissions for previous two-storey side extensions at the appeal property. The 2011 permission1 was for an extension which replicated the existing cat slide roof, and as such the approved extension had significantly less bulk and massing than the proposed extension. No details are provided of the 2008 permission2 so I am unable to make any comparison between it and the appeal scheme. As such, I am not persuaded that these previous permissions are directly comparable to the proposal before me. 1 Planning application ref. CB/11/01227/REN 2 Planning application ref. SB/08/00419
Although the appellant would agree to a condition requiring the submission of detailed drawings of the bay window, this would not mitigate the visual impact of the side extension. I also note that the Council has raised no objection with regards to the proposed porch and based on the evidence before me I have no reason to disagree.
Nevertheless, the proposed side extension would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2015-2035, which requires the size, scale, massing, and appearance of development to relate well to the existing local surroundings and reinforce local distinctiveness.
Section 05
Other Matters
The appeal site is within the Green Belt however the Council have not raised any objections in this regard. Based on the evidence before me I have no reason to disagree.
Section 06
Conclusion
I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore 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 5869No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 December 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 12 November 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3374400
- Application reference
- CB/25/01920/FULL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Central Bedfordshire
- Planning authority code
- E06000056
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
- Yes
- 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
- 8 October 2025
- Valid date
- 8 October 2025
- Start date
- 15 October 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 6 August 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 18 December 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
- 81855
- 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