Appeal 6009054
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
4 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
described as the proposed works comprise a loft conversion with a single side dormer and a 29.07 m2 ancillary outbuilding for hobby use, with no change to the dwelling's footprint or residential use.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is invalid, and no further action will be taken on it.
Section 03
Reasons for invalidity
The Council reached its decision upon the plans listed upon the decision notice. As set out in the Council’s appeal questionnaire, this included proposed plan ref: BH9 006 [name]: 14 which has conflicting information upon it between the proposed south-east, north-west and north-east elevations. This information does not fully correspond with the detail upon the proposed floor plan ref: BH9 004 [name]: 14. The contradictions between the plans provides no certainty over what is being proposed.
Whilst not determinative in my decision, the decision notice also includes informative 1 which reads ‘It is noted that the plans for this scheme are inaccurate by way of the proposed elevation plans not matching in terms of their measurements. The LPA sought to address these issues on numerous occasions but unfortunately an accurate set of plans has not been forthcoming.’
Through the appeal submissions, amongst other matters, I have been provided with a proposed elevational plan ref: BH9 006 [name]:18 and proposed floor plan ref: BH9 004 [name]: 18.
These are not the plans upon which the Council reached its decision, nor what interested parties were consulted upon. The planning appeals: procedural guide is clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and there are no provisions within the Rules for amendments to be submitted. Moreover, it states that it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Council, and by interested parties at the application stage. The revisions on proposed elevational plan ref: BH9 006 [name]:18 and proposed floor plan ref: BH9 004 [name]: 18 evolves and materially alters the scheme. I have therefore determined this appeal upon the plans previously considered by the Council when they determined the application.
However, as I have explained, inconsistencies between the plans on which the Council reached its decision provides no certainty about what is being proposed. As a result, the merits of the proposal cannot be properly or reliably assessed.
Section 79(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, sets out that if, before or during the determination of an appeal, the Secretary of State forms the opinion that, planning permission for that development could not have been granted by the local planning authority, he may decline to determine the appeal.
Due to the lack of clarity involved in this case, I have no jurisdiction to determine the appeal, because a finding of invalidity prevents an actual decision from being made.
Section 04
Conclusions
For all of the above reasons, having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal is invalid. No further action on it will therefore be taken.
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 4127No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 June 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 12 June 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6009054
- Application reference
- P/25/05125/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
- Planning authority code
- E06000058
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
- 92 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
- Invalid
- Decision category
- Other
- Received date
- 1 May 2026
- Valid date
- 1 May 2026
- Start date
- 7 May 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 February 2026
- Appeal decision date
- 19 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
- 90724
- 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