Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

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 works

One-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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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