Appeal 3302002
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
[name] of [name] to Front (Retrospective).
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
The application has been submitted retrospectively as the extension is already in place. Nevertheless, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans before me.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
[address] is located on the edge of a suburban area comprising of a mix of semi-detached and terraced dwellings. Dwellings tend to be set back from the road behind front gardens and driveways. Domestic extensions are common and primarily located to the side and rear of properties. Where extensions are present to the front of dwellings, these typically consist of narrow shallow porches or canopies. Dwellings are typically faced with brick or render.
The appeal site is a brick faced semi-detached dwelling that is typical of the properties along [address]. The extension that has been constructed is substantially greater in scale than is typical of front additions in the area, extending for the full width of the front elevation of the dwelling. It projects out a considerably greater distance from the dwelling than neighbouring porches or canopies.
Owing to its substantial width and extensive projection, it is highly prominent in views across neighbouring gardens on the approach towards the dwelling from either direction along [address]. Despite being set down from the level of the road, it nonetheless appears as a prominent and incongruous addition to the dwelling in these views. The prominence of the extension is exacerbated by the light coloured render finish which contrasts with the darker brick elevation of the dwelling. For these reasons the proposal would be unsympathetic and at odds with the character and appearance of the streetscene.
I accept that there are rendered properties in the vicinity and properties that have a mix of brick and render. However, as set out above, in this case the lighter material highlights the extension, emphasising its discordant appearance.
For the reasons outlined above, the extension is harmful to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the character and appearance of the streetscene. The development therefore conflicts with policies 41 and 44 of the Doncaster Local Plan (2021) which seek to provide high standards of design and preserve character and appearance. The proposal would also conflict with paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure new developments add to the overall quality of the area, are visually attractive and sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, 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 2No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 4 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 September 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3302002
- Application reference
- 22/00766/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000017
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
- 428 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
- 28 June 2022
- Valid date
- 28 June 2022
- Start date
- 23 August 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 May 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 4 October 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
- 21452
- 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