Appeal 3281325
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
Extension and conversion of existing garage to form self- contained annexe.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposal would appear as a subordinate residential annexe with particular emphasis on the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the local area.
Section 04
Reasons
The host dwelling is a detached two-storey dwelling with an existing outbuilding and is located at the end of a cul-de-sac in a predominately residential area. It is rendered externally. The appeal proposal seeks to convert and extend the existing outbuilding, adding an additional storey, which would raise the roof height by approximately 1.7m and would facilitate a self-contained living annexe.
The proposed self-contained annexe has its own bathroom and kitchen/living/dining area and would not be interdependent with any of the facilities provided in the main house at No.6. The proposed annexe could also be used completely independently of the main house. The proposal would not appear or function as a subordinate residential annexe and would appear to have a very limited functional connection with the main house at No.6, which would be limited to the potential use of the remaining garden.
I have found that the proposal would appear as a small, detached house, constructed adjacent the existing dwelling, looking onto the parking area, rather than being subordinate to No.6. Further, the proposed fenestration, external finishes and roof profile contrast with No.[address] frontage of properties in the local area, which demonstrate the design and appearance principles of the cul-de-sac plots.
However, although there is not a proposal for a separate dwelling before me, for the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would not appear or function as a subordinate residential annexe. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the application of a suitable condition requiring the proposed annexe to be used for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling would be in line with Paragraph 55 and 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), in that it would not be relevant to the form or function of the development proposed and would not result in an otherwise unacceptable development being acceptable.
For these reasons, the proposal would be discordant with the host dwelling, incongruous within the context of the street scene of [address] and have an undue prominence that would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. This would be contrary to Policy L7 of the [name] (2012) and Paragraph 130 of the Framework, which collectively seek to ensure that such development is of high-quality design, adds to the overall quality of the area, respects the appearance and character of the local area and fits unobtrusively within its context.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given, 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 221No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 November 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 2 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3281325
- Application reference
- 103720/HHA/21
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000009
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
- 56 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 19 August 2021
- Valid date
- 19 August 2021
- Start date
- 10 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 28 July 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 19 November 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
- 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
- 6331
- 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