Appeal 3306939
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 a 2 storey side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
I have used the description of development as it appears in the Council’s decision notice as it succinctly describes the development proposed.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site is a 2 storey semi detached house in a residential area. Gaps between properties provide a break in development to provide a more spacious character.
The 2 storey extension would extend to the edge of the plot at both ground floor and first floor level, adjacent to the boundary with No [address]. This would create a terracing effect that would harm the spacious character of the area. The use of materials to match the existing property would not overcome the harm.
Reference has been made to similar styled extensions in the same street and neighbouring streets and I observed a 2 storey side extension at No 13 on my site visit. However, the location and position of the property in relation to No 15 is different to the case before me and therefore not comparable. In any event, each case is determined on its own merits and my assessment is based on the information before me.
I note the reasons for the proposed extension and the consequences of a scheme compliant with the Council’s planning guidance but this does not outweigh the harm I have identified.
The development would harm the character and appearance of the area and therefore conflict with the part of Policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan which requires new development to be of high quality design, integrate effectively with the surroundings, complement the character of the area and be of a scale and massing that is appropriate to the setting of the site. It would also conflict with the [name] Planning Document which normally requires that side extensions should be set back and be at least one metre off the shared boundary at first floor level.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons identified and taking into account all other matters, including the absence of objection from the neighbouring properties, 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 3546No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 8 November 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 October 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3306939
- Application reference
- 22/00346/HP
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Worcester City Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000237
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
- 47 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
- 14 September 2022
- Valid date
- 14 September 2022
- Start date
- 29 September 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 25 August 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 8 November 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
- 23244
- 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