Appeal 3304949
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 extension forming storage area, dining room extension, two bedrooms and small decking to rear.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
[address] comprises a wide variety of dwelling types, which are typically set back from the road with spaces between buildings. No. [address] of six semi-detached houses of almost identical appearance. These buildings are sited at slightly splayed angles following the bend of the road and all have hipped roofs. Both of these factors increase the sense of space between the buildings, which makes a positive contribution to the area.
Due to the topography of the area the appeal property is higher than neighbouring No. 170 and the ground floor level of the houses is notably higher than the road. Consequently, the side elevation of the appeal property is visually prominent in the street scene.
The width of the proposed two-storey side extension would be approximately half the width of the original dwelling at the front. It would be flush with the front of the house and would have matching eaves and ridge height. However, the proposed gable roof would approximately triple the length of the ridge line of the dwelling. The bulk and form of the proposed gable roof would significantly unbalance the symmetry of this pair of hipped roof dwellings. This together with the increased mass of stonework created by the visually prominent gable wall, would appear incongruous in the street scene, detracting from the appearance of this row of semi-detached houses and the spaces between them.
I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area contrary to policy LP24 of the Kirklees Local Plan Strategy and [name] (adopted 27 February 2019), which requires amongst other things, that the form, scale and details of all development respects and enhances the character of the townscape and that extensions are in keeping with existing buildings. The proposed development would also conflict with guidance contained in the Council’s adopted [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework. These are material considerations, which advise amongst other things that new development should be sympathetic to local character and the surrounding built environment.
Section 05
Other Matters
I acknowledge the appellant’s desire to meet the increasing needs of his family, whilst retaining a good size rear garden with improved security. I also accept that a gable roof may be easier to maintain than a hipped roof with gutters up to the site boundary. However, these matters do not outweigh the harm I have identified and could be achieved in other ways.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given 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 164No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 26 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
- 3304949
- Application reference
- 2022/62/91227/W
- 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
- 32 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- No
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 11 August 2022
- Valid date
- 11 August 2022
- Start date
- 14 September 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 16 June 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 26 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
- 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
- 22552
- 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