Appeal 3294373
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
a two storey side and rear extension and single storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey side and rear extension and single storey rear extension at [site address] , Barkisland [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2021/00685/HSE, dated 14 June 2021, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan, 2021/308/02, 2021/308/03, 2021/308/04, 2021/308/06 and 2021/308/07.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed two storey side and rear extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of 25 Stonelea, with particular reference to outlook and massing.
Section 04
Reasons
The layout of this section of Stonelea means that the windows on the front elevation of No 25 would face directly towards the side elevation of the two storey element of the proposed extensions. Reference is made by the Council to [name] of Policy BE2 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan 2009 (UDP) and to the separation distances set out therein. However, the wording of this annex is clear that these distances do not represent hard and fast rules but instead provide an indication of standards which will be applied with a measure of flexibility in appropriate circumstances.
In this instance, the ground floor window of No 25 already faces towards the existing boundary fence, beyond which is the gable end of the appeal dwelling. Likewise, the first floor windows also face towards the existing side gable. Furthermore, No 25 is sited at a higher ground level than the appeal property, and this would serve to have some benefit in lessening the impact on the upper floor windows, with regard to both the outlook from them and from the massing of the proposal. Taking these circumstances together and accounting for the separation distance that would actually be provided, this distance would be adequate to prevent harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 25 with respect to outlook and massing.
I acknowledge that the separation distance usually required by [name] would not be met. However, I have outlined mitigating factors which mean that harm would not result. Consequently, the proposal would accord with the overall aims of Policy BE2 of the UDP where it seeks to protect living conditions.
Section 05
Conditions
Conditions are required with respect to the period to commence development and the approved plans, in the interests of providing certainty. The external facing materials to be used on the proposal are shown on the plans, and these would be visually acceptable. A separate condition is therefore not required with respect to materials.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
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 183No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 May 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 26 April 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3294373
- Application reference
- 2021/00685
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000033
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
- 74 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 7 March 2022
- Valid date
- 7 March 2022
- Start date
- 17 March 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 15 December 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 17 May 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
- No
- 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
- 15327
- 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