Appeal 3287744
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 first floor side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
Previous applications for a first floor side extension were refused1 in June 2020 and in May 20212.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling with a single storey attached garage to the side. It is located in a residential area, largely characterised by the presence of two storey semi-detached dwellings.
Houses along [address] tend to be set back from the pavement behind short front gardens and/or parking areas and have longer gardens to the rear. The presence of occasional grass verges and gardens combine with the setting back of the houses from the street to provide for a significant sense of spaciousness.
Further to the above, during my site visit I observed that, whilst single storey garages attached to the side of dwellings tend to be built close to, or adjoining one another, gaps above these at first floor level provide important visual 1 Ref: 20/00451/FULHH. 2 Ref: 21/00361/FULHH. breaks between pairs of dwellings. These gaps make a positive contribution to the area’s sense of spaciousness.
The proposed development would extend the appeal property to the side at first floor level. The proposal would extend to the side boundary with Number [address]. Whilst there would be a set back from the front elevation, this would only be small and it would fail to be so significant as to lead the proposed extension – which would reach all the way to the neighbouring boundary – to appear subordinate to the host property. Instead, the extension would draw attention to itself as a large and bulky development, rather than a subordinate addition.
Further to the above, the proposal would significantly reduce the important gap at first floor level between Nos 36 and [address]. This would be to the detriment of the area’s spacious attributes.
In support of their case, the appellants refer to the nearby presence of other extensions similar to that proposed. 10.During my site visit, I observed that the majority of pairs of dwellings close to the property have retained the gaps between them at first floor level and as noted above, these gaps make an important contribution to local character. Furthermore, I have found that the proposal would result in harm and this is not something that is outweighed by the presence of other developments nearby. 11.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Local Plan3 Policies LLP1, LLP19 and LLP25 which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
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 601No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 25 January 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 January 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3287744
- Application reference
- 21/01081/FULHH
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 25 November 2021
- Valid date
- 25 November 2021
- Start date
- 1 December 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 September 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 25 January 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
- 9381
- 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