Appeal 3288358
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
6 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
described as a ‘side double storey extension’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue of this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The majority of the houses on the same section of [address] as the host dwelling have not been significantly altered. This also applies to the rear of the houses located on [address] that face [address]. These factors contribute to the balanced form and regular rhythm of development to the street. The host dwelling forms the first house on this side and section of the road and whilst it has been extended through the introduction of a single storey side extension and rear conservatory, these additions have not significantly altered its original form. It was noted on my site visit that the appeal site slightly differs from the surrounding houses through occupying a larger plot.
Whilst there is no specific policy objection to the principle of a residential extension, I note that the appeal scheme would extend the width of the building considerably. The host dwelling has retained a clear sense of balance and symmetry relative to the adjoining property, which accordingly contributes towards a positive feature of the wider street scene. Whilst the proposed development incorporates a lower ridge, when compared to the existing house and a set back on the front elevation at first floor, the proposed development still results in an overly wide addition to the host dwelling relative to its existing proportions.
Therefore, the size of the proposed development, particularly through its width, would diminish and unbalance the character and appearance of the host dwelling to the detriment of the wider street scene. Although the appeal site benefits from a larger plot, this would not provide sufficient mitigation to overcome the harmful effect of the proposed development.
For all of these reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. This would be contrary to the design, character and appearance aims of Policies DM1, P3 of the [name] 2016 and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Section 05
Other Matters
I have also had regard to various other matters raised by the appellant, including their need to develop a family home, no adverse effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and the provision of 2no. off-street car parking spaces, but these do not alter my conclusions on the main issue. I have considered this appeal proposal on its own particular merits and concluded that it would cause harm for the reasons set out above.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should 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 140No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 3 February 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 18 January 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3288358
- Application reference
- 21/01461/HOUS
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000005
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
- 75 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
- 5 December 2021
- Valid date
- 5 December 2021
- Start date
- 22 December 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 26 November 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 3 February 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
- 9957
- 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