Appeal 3337138
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
7 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
described as alterations to roof to include replacement dormer windows to front of dwelling house.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
Front dormers were in place on the appeal property at the time of my visit. The appeal proposal seeks permission for two reduced size dormers on the front elevation. For clarity, I have dealt with the appeal based on the submitted plans.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the appeal development on the character and appearance of the appeal building and the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a detached building which is situated in an area that contains a variety of closely positioned properties. The changes in topography result in properties being sited at different levels, with the level changes also affording views over the predominantly pitched roofs of residential properties in the area. The simple roof forms, as well as the generally consistent building lines provides for a cohesive character.
The proposed dormers would be situated on the front roof slope, and although they would be of a reduced size compared to the dormers that are currently in place, they would nevertheless be large, prominent structures. The windows on the proposed dormers would also only partially align with the windows on the first-floor front elevation of the host property, with the dormer structures themselves being out of alignment with these existing windows below.
Whilst there may be other dormers in the wider area, including those that the Council has recently approved, there are none on nearby properties on this section of [address]. The dormers would as a result, appear as top heavy and alien additions which would be harmful to the visual appearance of the appeal building and the character of the area.
I therefore conclude that the appeal development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the appeal building and the area. As such, it would conflict with Policies BE5 and H14 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan and Policy CS 74 of the Council’s Core Strategy, which seek, amongst other matters, for extensions to be well designed, including in terms of scale, form and detailing. The proposal would also be contrary to [address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance and Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek development that is sympathetic to local character.
Section 06
Other Matters
Reference has been made to the planning history of the site, and I note the appellant sought to engage and work positively with the Council. This appeal follows the Council’s formal decision, and I can confirm that I have assessed the development accordingly, on both its merits and impacts.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, 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 423No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 8 May 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 12 April 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3337138
- Application reference
- 23/03364/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Sheffield City Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000019
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
- 7 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
- 18 January 2024
- Valid date
- 18 January 2024
- Start date
- 9 February 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 December 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 8 May 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
- 50658
- 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