Appeal 3275313
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
demolition of garage and erection of two storey side/rear and single storey front extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
[address] forms part of a housing estate constructed in the latter half of the last century. Semi-detached, two storey houses set back from the pavement behind short, open gardens are the predominant form of housing along the Avenue. The predominant symmetrical appearance of the semi-detached pairs of houses, together with the regular gaps separating them, creates an attractive rhythm of development in the streetscene.
The left hand side of the front elevation of the existing house is set forward slightly of the right side. The proposed side extension would add further articulation by being set forward of the left hand side of the house at ground floor level and set back slightly at first floor level. Together with the pitched roof over the ground floor of the extension and front door this would add visual interest. However, in not setting down the height of the extension in relation to the existing dwelling the original form of the house would be lost. As a consequence, the extension would appear as if it was part of the dwelling’s original design, with the increase in width that would occur unbalancing the pair of semi-detached houses of which it forms a part.
This would be contrary to the recently adopted supplementary planning document ‘[name] (SPD) which states that the roof of a two storey side extension should be set down in height in relation to the house to create a subservient extension and avoid the adverse effects that I have described.
A number of semi-detached houses on the avenue have a two storey side extension constructed flush with the front elevation and the roof line which has unbalanced the semi-detached pair of which they form a part. However, it appears to me that they predate the recently adopted SPD and are too few in number and too far apart to have changed the character of the Avenue to the extent that the appeal proposal would fit in.
For all of these reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would constitute poor design and would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the street. This would be contrary to policy CS28 of the Rotherham Local Plan Core Strategy and policy SP55 of the Rotherham Local Plan Sites and [name]. These policies require the protection of the character and appearance of a locality through high quality design that respects local design features.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, I therefore 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.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 1091No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 October 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 12 October 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3275313
- Application reference
- RB2021/0233
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000018
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
- Planning Appeals - Full
- 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
- No
- 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
- 29 April 2021
- Valid date
- 29 April 2021
- Start date
- 17 June 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 15 April 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 18 October 2021
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
- 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
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 4758
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21