Appeal 6001367
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
“Householder planning application - a. new door to side elevation b. replace rear elevation door with full length window c. rear elevation Juliette balcony removed and partial infill to allow for replacement window d. painting of garage door e. replacement front door” without complying with a condition attached to planning permission [name]/25/0232/HH dated 6 June 2025.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Background and [name]
Permission was granted in June 2025 for various alterations to the elevations of the dwelling. The appeal application sought to vary the plans condition (2) to allow the replacement of a rear first floor window with a pair of French doors and a box gutter.
In the Court of Appeal judgment, [name] v [name] & Carmarthenshire County Council, Energiekontor (Uk) Limited [2019] [name] 1868 (the Finney judgment) it was established that an application under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) may not be used to obtain a permission that would require a variation to the terms of the ‘operative’ part of the planning permission, which would include the description of the development for which the original permission was granted. As it was not presented in evidence, both main parties were given the opportunity to comment on this judgment and how it relates to the appeal. Comments were received from the Council, which I have taken into account in my decision.
In light of the above, the main issues are: • whether the appeal proposal can be considered under section 73 of the Act; and, if so, • the effect of the appeal proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to privacy.
Section 04
Reasons
The description of development on the original permission (Ref: DC/25/0232/HH) was “Householder planning application - a. new door to side elevation b. replace rear elevation door with full length window c. rear elevation Juliette balcony removed and partial infill to allow for replacement window d. painting of garage door e. replacement front door”. This description is specific and makes no reference to the replacement of the window with French doors and installation of the box gutter, the subject of this appeal. The appeal proposal would therefore conflict with the original description of development. It follows that this particular amendment is beyond the powers under section 73 of the Act and a fresh planning application would be required.
The Finney judgment is clear that an application under section 73 of the Act may not be used to obtain a permission that would require a variation to the operative part of the planning permission.
Given my findings above, it is not necessary for me to go on to consider the appeal proposal’s effect upon the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.
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 5181No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 9 January 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 3 December 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6001367
- Application reference
- DC/25/1093/VAR
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- West Suffolk
- Planning authority code
- E07000245
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
- Not recorded
- Appeal reason
- refused
- Type detail
- Removal or Variation of Conditions
- Jurisdiction
- No Jurisdiction Associated
- Link status
- Not recorded
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- 0 hectares
- Floor space
- 700 m²
- Number of residences
- Not recorded
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- 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
- 30 October 2025
- Valid date
- 30 October 2025
- Start date
- 5 November 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 September 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 9 January 2026
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- Not recorded
- Bespoke
- Not recorded
- 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
- Back Office
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 82574
- 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