Appeal 3286356
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
a two-storey side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the streetscene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a two-storey dwelling with an attached single-storey garage. It is situated in a residential area comprising mainly semi-detached dwellings. A number of dwellings in the vicinity of the appeal site have been altered and extended. These alterations include two-storey side extensions. However, notwithstanding these extensions, a particular characteristic is the relatively generous space at first floor level between most of the properties.
The proposal is to construct a two-storey extension to provide garaging and utility space on the ground floor with bedroom and study space on the first floor. The front wall of the extension would be flush with the existing front wall of the dwelling and its roof height would match the existing.
Policy CSP1 of the Council’s adopted [name] seeks (amongst other things) to ensure that the design of new development is of high quality and contributes positively to the area. In addition, Policy R23 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document – Urban Design Guidance (SPD) advises that extensions should be well designed and (amongst other things) reflect the pattern and rhythm of the existing built form.
I consider that the proposed extension would have an unacceptably harmful and dominant effect on the streetscene, because of its positioning flush with the existing front wall of the dwelling. The resultant mass and narrowing of the gap between properties at first floor level would be at odds with the prevailing character and appearance of the streetscene.
In reaching my decision, I have given weight to the appellant’s statement that setting the extension back would present difficulties in using the existing foundations, result in a small garage space and would require alteration to services and utilities. However, these matters do not outweigh the harm that I have identified.
I have also taken into account the existence of other two storey side extensions on properties on [address], including the extensions at numbers 19, 23 and 27. I note that the extensions at numbers 19 and 23 have been set-back at first floor level, which gives some relief to their appearance. The extension at number 27 is more comparable with the appeal proposal and I agree with the Council that it is out of character and not something that should be replicated.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, I consider that the proposal would conflict with the provisions of the Development Plan, the SPD and the Framework, as referred to above. Therefore, it is concluded that the appeal 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 203No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 4 March 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 8 February 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3286356
- Application reference
- 67186
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Stoke-on-Trent City Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000021
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
- 24 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
- 6 November 2021
- Valid date
- 6 November 2021
- Start date
- 12 January 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 27 October 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 4 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
- 11714
- 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