Appeal 3302781
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
two storey and single storey side extensions.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is located in a prominent position on a corner plot on the junction of [address] and [address], set above the level of [address]. The surrounding area is mature and characterised by a wide mix of largely single and two storey houses of varying ages, with a variety of architectural styles and materials, set back from the road behind landscaped front gardens. This gives the area a pleasant open character.
I note that the appellant has set back and down the extension from the host property, such that its scale and design would be subservient to the host property. However, as a result of its siting closer to the junction and the reduction in openness that would result, I find that the proposed two storey extension would harmfully increase the property’s prominence and dominance in the street scene. Whilst the single storey extension would be less visually intrusive, taken as a whole, the reduction in space around the building that would result, would harmfully erode the open character and appearance of the locality.
For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy LP24 of the Kirklees Local Plan Local Strategy and Policies (Adopted 27 February 2019), which seeks to put good design at the core of all proposals which respects and enhances the character of the area. There would also be conflict with the [name] and [name] (June 2021) which has similar objectives, and in respect of side extensions, requires them to be located and designed to minimise the impact on the local character of the area. These policies and guidance are consistent with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, which attaches great importance to good design and requires development to respect local character.
Section 05
Conclusion
The proposal conflicts with the Development Plan taken as a whole. There are no other considerations which indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. The appeal is therefore 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 4208No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 27 September 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3302781
- Application reference
- 2022/62/90411/E
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Kirklees Metropolitan Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000034
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
- 7 July 2022
- Valid date
- 7 July 2022
- Start date
- 23 August 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 8 June 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 10 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
- 21758
- 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