Appeal 6004577
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
extension and loft conversion to property.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Applications for costs
An application for costs was made against Tewkesbury Borough Council by [name]. This application is the subject of a separate decision.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
[site address] is a modest semi-detached pitched roof bungalow situated within a row of 5 pairs of bungalows generally consistent in terms of their form, size, appearance and siting. This results in a pleasant, ordered character and appearance to the immediate surrounding area to which the appeal property contributes positively.
The proposal is for the erection of side and rear extensions and dormer windows to the front and rear of the dwelling. The Council raise no objection to the rear extension, and I see no reason to take a different view. However, the front dormer window would extend across most of the extended dwelling, and in combination with the side extension, would dominate and alter the proportions of the modest host dwelling. The altered roof would unbalance the pair of bungalows, appearing as an uncharacteristic addition which would disrupt the rhythm of dwellings in the row. This would detract from the character and appearance of the host property and its positive contribution to the street scene.
I have given due consideration to an application to which my attention has been drawn at 31 Oldbury Orchard1, a semi-detached dormer bungalow with a flat roof dormer window to the front. Each case must be considered on its individual merits 1 23/00647/FUL and considerations of character and appearance are inherently site-specific. That application included an extended dormer window which was consistent in height and form with the existing dormer and that of the adjoining bungalow. It did not introduce a new dormer window to one half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings. As that application is materially different to the appeal proposal, I afford it limited weight.
The proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Conflict therefore arises with those aims of policy SD4 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and [name] 2011-2031 (2017), policy RES10 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan 2011- 2031 (2022) and policy CHIN2 of the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan 2018 - 2031 (2020) which seek to ensure that proposals should demonstrate high quality design and respect the character and appearance of surrounding development.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I conclude that 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.
Costs Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 5070No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 March 2026Matches the official casework database
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 5070No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 March 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 3 March 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6004577
- Application reference
- 25/00873/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Tewkesbury Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000083
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
- Householder
- 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
- 460 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
- 3 February 2026
- Valid date
- 3 February 2026
- Start date
- 11 February 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 January 2026
- Appeal decision date
- 12 March 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
- Yes
- 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
- 85817
- 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