Appeal 6006285
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
sunroom extension.
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 host property and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
No [site address] (No 4) is a semi-detached residential property located on a prominent corner plot. Despite the installation of a pergola, its front elevational design is simple, a characteristic that is shared with its adjoining neighbour and other semi-detached properties along this side of [name]. They all originate from a similar era, which together with their largely symmetrical form, provides unity within the street scene. The front boundary to the plot is dominated by a tall hedge.
The proposal is for a single storey front facing sunroom that would stretch across most of the property’s width and would be substantial in depth.
The introduction of a significant amount and depth of built form, forward of the principal elevation of the property, would be at significant odds with its neighbour and other similar examples along [name]. It would therefore be an incongruous and overly dominant addition to the front of the property.
Whilst the plot is currently bound by a substantial front hedgerow boundary that largely precludes views into the site from [name], the retention and ongoing maintenance of such a feature could not be secured in perpetuity. Therefore, existing or proposed soft landscaping features would not provide effective and enduring mitigation against the harm found.
References have been made to approvals1 for forward projecting extensions to both No 4 and neighbouring properties. However, specific details and plans have not been provided, and it is therefore unclear whether they are comparable to the 1 Council Refs H10-0536-25 and H16-0071-25. current scheme. Nevertheless, this case has been decided on its own planning merits.
For the above reasons, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Thus, it would be contrary to Policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019), which, amongst other things, require development to be of high-quality design, which is appropriate to, and maximises opportunities for improving, the character and appearance of the local area.
Section 05
Other Matters
The absence of harm found relating to the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residents is not a benefit but a neutral matter in the
Section 06
Conclusion
The proposal conflicts with the development plan, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Thus, the appeal is 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 10No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 3 June 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 27 May 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6006285
- Application reference
- H11-1009-25
- 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
- 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
- 547 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
- 11 March 2026
- Valid date
- 18 March 2026
- Start date
- 24 March 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 December 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 3 June 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
- 89793
- 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