Appeal 3333799
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
8 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
the erection of a part single storey part two storey extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a part single storey part two storey extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2023/0470, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans; - Block and site location plans; Ground floor plan as proposed; First floor plan as proposed and Elevations and car port as proposed.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.
Section 03
[name]
A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in December 2023. However, the policies therein which are material to this case have not fundamentally changed. Therefore, I have proceeded to determine the appeal having regard to the revised Framework.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
For the purposes of the Council’s 2008 Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment, the appeal site lies within the ‘[name] and [name] which is regarded as being of a very high landscape quality. There is limited evidence before me regarding the specific characteristics and qualities of this landscape type. However, I saw at my site visit that the area in which the appeal property is appreciated is predominantly rural in character and is typified by gently undulating open fields, defined by a mix of hedgerows and trees which are interspersed with sporadic development. Whilst properties in the immediate area vary in scale and age, they are mostly of traditional design and materials. These characteristics provide a scenic, rural setting.
The appeal property comprises a standalone, double fronted dwelling which lies at a right angle to [site address] , the main route between Leek and Ashbourne. It occupies a generous plot which is enclosed by low-level fencing and hedging which allows for unobstructed views of the appeal site from the public right of way, nearest neighbouring dwelling, and [address]. The traditional character of the appeal property positively contributes to the character and appearance of the area.
The proposed two storey extension would extend the full width and depth of the existing recess. However, the additional floorspace, mass and visual bulk would not be overly excessive when viewed in relation to the property as a whole. The ridge height would be sufficiently subservient to the appeal property whilst the roof pitch would be in keeping with the twin gables, thus providing a degree of visual continuity and balance. The proposed lean-to extension, whilst elongating the property would be modest in terms of its floorspace whilst its single storey form and mono-pitched roof structure would limit the additional visual mass and bulk to ground floor level.
The proposal, in combination with previous additions would undoubtedly change the scale and appearance of the appeal property, which would be particularly noticeable from the identified receptors. However, given that a large part of the proposal would be located on the far side elevation, the elevations which are most prominent on the main approach to the appeal site would be largely unaffected. Moreover, the original cottage would remain legible and would continue to be the dominant element within the appeal site for the reasons set out above. Accordingly, the proposed two-storey and single storey extensions would not read as a disproportionate or unduly dominant form of development.
The scale, design and proportions of the proposed openings would differ to the more traditional fenestration found in the original cottage. Nevertheless, these features would not be read in the same context as those openings in the original cottage and would be consistent with the openings in the existing side elevation thus securing visual cohesion. The first-floor balcony, albeit a more contemporary feature would not be obtrusive by virtue of its glazed, lightweight construction and would be viewed against the more recent gable additions. The rooflights would be limited in number and not overly obtrusive given their dimensions and siting. The use of render on the lean-to, whilst in contrast to the brick finish which predominates on the roadside elevations would be in keeping with the existing rear elevation which is rendered on the upper part.
Although visible from the road, the proposed carport would be largely screened by the existing roadside landscaping and would be sufficiently subservient to the appeal property. Its traditional design and use of sympathetic materials would relate well to the appeal property and the site’s rural surroundings and would thus not read as a dominant or conspicuous addition to the site.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. It would accord with [name] 1, SS 10, DC 1 and DC 3 of the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan 2020 (Local Plan). Amongst other aspects, these policies seek to ensure that development is of an appropriate scale and design which respects and enhances the local landscape character and distinctiveness. It would also be consistent with the design objectives set out in the [name] 2018 and the Framework.
Conflict with Local Plan Policy SS 2 is alleged by the Council. However, this relates to the settlement hierarchy and distribution of new development. My attention has not been drawn to any wording therein which relates to character and appearance and therefore this policy is not determinative to this main issue.
Section 06
Other Matters
There is a grade II listed mile post within proximity of the appeal site. The significance of the mile post relates in part, to its location and historical function whilst its setting is informed by the immediate grass verge in which it is located. In determining the appeal, Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. As the appeal development would not affect the grass verge or the legibility of the listed mile post, I find that the setting of the heritage asset would not be harmed.
Section 07
Conditions
I have had regard to the planning conditions recommended by the Council, and I have considered them against the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have made such amendments as necessary to comply with those documents and for clarity and consistency. In addition to the standard time limit, I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of certainty. A condition requiring the use of matching materials is imposed to safeguard the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area.
Section 08
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, having regard to the development plan taken as a whole, and all other material considerations including the Framework, the appeal is allowed.
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 3143No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 June 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 May 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3333799
- Application reference
- SMD/2023/0470
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Staffordshire Moorlands District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000198
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
- Unknown
- 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
- 1
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 24 November 2023
- Valid date
- 29 November 2023
- Start date
- 19 February 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 16 November 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 12 June 2024
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
- 52325
- 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