Appeal 3302973
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
erection of lower-ground floor extension to basement.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
The description of development in the banner heading above was changed by the Council from the original application form with the agreement of the appellant during the application process.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a two-storey mid-terraced dwelling located within a residential area the wider area is allocated as a Housing Area in the local plan. The properties in the immediate vicinity are located at a higher level than the highway, and typically have a low front boundary wall enclosing a small sloping front amenity space.
The appeal proposal would create a single-storey front extension at lower ground floor to fill the space between the boundary well and the front elevation, effectively creating additional basement storage. It would have a front projection of approximately 2.8m and a width of 4m. it would be 2m in height, built in stone with a “green” flat roof. To facilitate this, the existing front amenity space would be excavated.
Part of the intrinsic character of the terraced properties is the small amenity gap between the highway and the front elevations of the properties on this section of the [address] properties at this side of the highway. Many of the properties have introduced planting in this area and it gives a pleasant aesthetic in terms of the locality.
Due to the scale and forward projection, I find that the appeal proposal would appear incongruous in the context of both the host property and the street scene. I consider that such a departure from the established built form would appear inconsistent and unsightly, unbalancing the host property, be uncharacteristic and cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area.
I therefore conclude that the appeal proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area and would be contrary to saved policies H14 and BE5 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policy CS74 of the [name] (2009) which collectively, amongst other matters, expect development to be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings and respect their form and architectural style.
I also find conflict with the guidance set out in the Supplementary Planning Guidance on [address] Extensions and Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Section 06
Conclusion
The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no other considerations that outweigh this conflict. For the reasons outlined 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 221No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 15 August 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 2 August 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3302973
- Application reference
- 2022/00861/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Sheffield City Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000019
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
- 11 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
- 12 July 2022
- Valid date
- 12 July 2022
- Start date
- 27 July 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 April 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 15 August 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
- 19248
- 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