Appeal 3325433
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
one and 2 storey rear extension and single storey front extension and carport and front porch/ canopy.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The Council has identified no issue with the scale, design or materials of the rear extensions. I have no reason to disagree. The main issue therefore is the effect of the front extension and porch on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a 2 storey semi detached property set back from the road by a front garden and driveway. The dwelling is located on a main road of commercial uses and similarly styled residential properties, some of which have been extended and altered. The appeal property has been extended following the grant of planning permission in 2021. However, the development has not been built in line with the plans and so retrospective planning permission is sought.
The height, size and overall scale of the front extension and porch creates a highly visible, disproportionate addition which obscures the bottom of the first floor windows and dominates the front elevation, creating an incongruous development within the street scene. This is particularly when viewed in the context of neighbouring dwellings. Based on my assessment of the plans and my observations onsite, I disagree with the appellant’s suggestion that the difference in the appearance of the permitted and developed schemes is minimal.
The set back of the dwelling from the road does not mitigate the harm and the caravan sales centre and neighbouring hedgerow only provide some screening in certain views. The development is clearly visible within the street scene from numerous angles.
The appellant has referenced other dwellings that have been subject to extensions in support of their case. However, I do not consider any of them to be directly comparable to the scheme before me in terms of scale or appearance or impact on the street scene. The appellant also refers to planning permissions that have been granted elsewhere in the road. I have limited information about these permissions but in any event each case is determined on its own merits and that is what I have done.
The development of the front extension and porch harms the character and appearance of the area. It therefore conflicts with Policies SP1, SP24, DP1 and DP3 of the East Staffordshire Local Plan. Amongst other things, these policies require new development to be of high quality appropriate design and positively contribute to the area. It also conflicts with the part of Policy B2 of the Branston Neighbourhood Plan which requires new development to be of high quality design and reflect and respect local characteristics.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons identified and taking into account all other matters, including representations by interested parties, 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 3546No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 3 October 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 29 August 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3325433
- Application reference
- P/2022/01283
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- East Staffordshire Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000193
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 6 July 2023
- Valid date
- 6 July 2023
- Start date
- 14 August 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 June 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 3 October 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
- 39666
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21