Appeal 3284917
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
9 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
a 2 storey side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure
The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.
Section 04
Preliminary Matters
In the banner heading above I have taken the name of the appellant from the appeal form as it is more complete.
The appellant submitted amended plans to the Council during the determination of the planning application. These were consulted upon and used by the Council to determine the application. I have considered the appeal based on these amended plans.
Section 05
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 06
Reasons for the Recommendation
The appeal site lies at the corner of [address] and [address]. It is an end terrace with an existing single storey side extension with a single pitch roof. The area is characterised by a mix of terraces and semi-detached dwellings, set back from the road and with a defined and consistent building line giving a strong rhythm to the street scene, particularly along [address]. Corner properties, such as the appeal site, generally maintain a generous distance to the adjacent road, at least at first floor, contributing to the open character of the area.
The addition of a two storey extension to the side of the host property, close to the rear of the pavement, would increase the bulk and massing of the dwelling at first floor reducing the local open and spacious character of corner dwellings. Furthermore, it would also be forward of the building line along [address] and due to its height and scale would harm the regular rhythm to the street. Due to its location, it would be prominent in the local area from a variety of viewpoints along both [address] and [address] and for the reasons above would appear over dominant in the street scene contrary to paragraph 3.22 of SPD4: A guide for [address] Extensions and Alterations 2012 (the SPD)
I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, in conflict with Policy L7 of the [name], the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek to ensure, amongst other things, that development is of good design and due regard is given to local character and the development is appropriate in its context.
Section 07
[name]
I note the appellant’s concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the planning application. However, this is a matter that would need to be taken up with the Council in the first instance. In determining this appeal, I am only able to have regard to the planning merits of the case.
Section 08
Conclusion and Recommendation
The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, that outweigh this conflict. I therefore recommend that the appeal is dismissed.
Section 09
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis 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 1463No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 14 March 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 31 January 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3284917
- Application reference
- 103975/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
- 22 m²
- 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
- 15 October 2021
- Valid date
- 15 October 2021
- Start date
- 2 December 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 1 October 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 14 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
- 12251
- 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