Appeal 3305041
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
4 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 side and single storey front extension 1.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
Flowing from the Council’s reason for refusal, the main issue is whether the proposed two storey side extension would, by reason of its location, size and mass, appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature in the street scene, and whether the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
[address], within the vicinity of the appeal site, is characterised by semi-detached houses, some of which have had modest and proportionate additions. The proposed extension would broadly double the width of the existing dwelling, in two storey form, and follow the front and rear walls of the original house. It would have a common ridge line and occupy most of the remaining width of this corner plot.
In my view, the proposal would appear out of scale with the existing dwelling and result in an unbalancing effect on its attached neighbour. Moreover, its uncharacteristic and dominating appearance would be compounded by its focus and prominence, given the manner in which the land falls from [address] into [address].
Despite the adoption of matching windows and elevation treatments, I conclude that the proposed two storey side extension would, by reason of its location, size and mass, appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature in the street scene, and the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 1 I have used the simplified description of development given by the local planning authority and adopted by the appellant
It follows that the proposal would be in conflict with Policy 8(d)(i) of the [name] (2016) and the development plan when read as a whole.
I have noted the examples of other extensions in the locality that have been drawn to my attention. However, as none of these are comparable in terms of scale and location, I find nothing to lead me to a different conclusion.
Having considered these, and all other matters raised, and noting the representations made at application stage, the appeal is 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 1797No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 1 March 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 9 February 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3305041
- Application reference
- NK/2022/0125
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- North Northamptonshire
- Planning authority code
- Not recorded
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
- 31 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 August 2022
- Valid date
- 28 September 2022
- Start date
- 24 January 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 June 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 1 March 2023
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
- 29042
- 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