Appeal 3311924
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
a front extension to a domestic house to create an office space on ground floor and an additional bedroom on the first floor.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling which is of a size commensurate with its corner plot. At the time of my site visit it was not in an obvious state of disrepair nor did it detract from the neighbourhood.
The proposed two storey front extension would have a large footprint as it would project beyond the front elevation of the dwelling by a considerable amount and would be of a generous width. Its substantial massing would be readily apparent and further exacerbated by its ridge and eaves lines which would match that of the host dwelling. By virtue of these factors, the proposal would fail to read as a subservient addition but rather, as acknowledged by the appellant, it would dominate the existing, modest dwelling. It would therefore be an intrusive feature.
My attention has been drawn to other two storey front extensions in the locality and I observed many examples during my site visit, along with properties which had undergone modern upgrades to their facades. [name] agree that the modern upgrades to properties in this locality appears to be appropriate, the planning history of the other extensions is not clear thus I cannot make a fully reasoned comparison with this appeal. Furthermore, the contemporary design approach to the proposal and use of similar materials to the host dwelling does not overcome the proposal’s harmful massing.
I acknowledge that the proposed extension would provide additional space for a growing family and a home office. However, I am not persuaded that the proposal is the minimum necessary to achieve the additional living space required, or that the property could not be extended in other ways to achieve the required space. Additionally, whilst I did not observe any obvious external concerns in terms of the condition of the front of the dwelling, there is no convincing evidence before me to indicate that the proposal is required to make any necessary improvements, or that they could not be achieved in other ways.
Accordingly, the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy CS6 of the Shropshire Local Development Framework: [name] (March 2011) and Policy MD2 of the Shropshire Council Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev) Plan (December 2015) which together seek to ensure that developments take into account local context and character and respond appropriately to the form and layout of existing development, amongst other things.
Section 05
Conclusion
The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no other considerations which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, 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 1499No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 13 April 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 March 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3311924
- Application reference
- 22/03346/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Shropshire County Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000051
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
- 25 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
- 24 November 2022
- Valid date
- 19 December 2022
- Start date
- 27 January 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 12 September 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 13 April 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
- 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
- 31097
- 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