Appeal 3275818
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
single storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed, and prior approval is granted for single storey rear extension, at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of application ref: 21/00526/PARES, dated 13 April 2021 and subject to the conditions set out within the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the proposal constitutes permitted development by virtue of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO).
Section 04
Reasons
The dimensions of the proposal comply with the requirements of the GPDO. However, the Council’s concerns manifest themselves in the presence of an existing outbuilding and whether the proposed extension would join it.
On this basis, the appellant presents a compelling case that part of the outbuilding would be demolished to facilitate the extension. This would have the effect of providing a 30cm gap between the outbuilding and the proposed extension. Subject to such a gap being provided, the proposal would comply with the requirements of the GPDO.
Despite this, I find the language of the appellant’s evidence unnecessary. The drawings which supplemented the original application are not abundantly clear and the area of the outbuilding to be demolished is broadly the thickness of a line on a plan. [name] have found in favour of the appellant on this basis, references to incompetence are not helpful to the case before me, particularly when the original drawings could have been significantly clearer in their presentation.
Regardless of this however, based on the evidence before me, I conclude that the proposal would constitute permitted development by virtue of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Section 05
Conditions and Conclusion
The conditions of development are established within the GPDO. Accordingly, I have no reason to set these out within this decision.
For the reasons identified above, the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval be granted.
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 731No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 March 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 8 March 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3275818
- Application reference
- 21/00526/PARES
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Luton Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000032
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
- 3. Refused prior approval of permitted development rights
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Unknown
- 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
- 46 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 25 May 2021
- Valid date
- 25 May 2021
- Start date
- 23 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 12 May 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 10 March 2022
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 12041
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21