Appeal 3296013
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
Proposed two storey extension to the side.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character an appearance of the local area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is an end of terrace dwelling consisting of six two storey houses angled towards the road. The terrace follows the same characteristics as the other rows of six terraced houses and are very ordered in their arrangement with a uniform appearance. It is seen in the context of these similar terraces and specifically relates to them.
An extension as proposed would not appear subordinate to the host dwelling even with a setback incorporated into the design, due to its large scale and massing. Its wide proportions when compared to the width of the host dwelling would appear as a bulky and incongruous addition to it. The prominent location would further emphasise its appearance and would not make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the local area.
There are extensions visible to other properties seen within close range of the appeal site. However, some are to semi-detached houses which is a different style of dwelling. The scale and proportions of the other extensions and their context are not the same as the appeal site. None of these examples share the same characteristics as the appeal proposal before me and therefore I am not convinced can reasonably be compared.
I appreciate the appellant has made efforts to reduce its size and improve the detailing to the proposed extension and this is noted. I also understand their desire to increase the size of the dwelling due to their family needs. However, the disproportionately large addition that would be adversely harmful to the character and appearance of the local area would not outweigh these considerations.
Therefore, to conclude, the proposed extension would not appear as a subordinate addition and would detrimentally harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the local area. It would thus conflict with the design aims of Policy BE1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan 2006.
Section 05
Conclusion
Given the harmful effect of the proposed development by virtue of its scale and massing on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the local area, it would lead to conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.
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 296No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 24 May 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 9 May 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3296013
- Application reference
- 21/00346/HSE
- 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
- 26 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
- 31 March 2022
- Valid date
- 31 March 2022
- Start date
- 12 April 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 January 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 24 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
- 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
- 15658
- 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