Appeal 3342678
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
6 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
erection of additional storey above existing single storey garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
The description of development differs from the application form to the decision notice. I have no evidence to suggest that change was agreed, therefore I have used the original description. I am satisfied neither party is prejudiced by this course of action.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a brick built detached dwelling located in a predominately residential area. The general design profile in the area is of dwellings with an attached single storey flat roofed garage, but many of these have been extended and converted with appropriate roof profiles.
The proposed extension would add a first floor above the existing garage but still retaining the flat roof profile which contrasts with the existing profile of the existing dwelling. If constructed, the resulting dwelling would look out of place and not co-ordinate with the dwellings in the immediate locality, appearing uncharacteristically prominent in the street scene and create an uncomfortable relationship between the proposal and the existing dwelling.
The roof form of the proposal would appear odd in its surroundings, failing to respect the angles of the roof of the existing dwelling and its overall height, unduly detracting from the host dwelling and surrounding properties. As stated previously, other nearby properties have been altered with first floor extensions above the garage and have chosen to harmonise with the roof profile of the existing dwelling to give an outward appearance that complements the character and appearance of the area.
In this instance the proposal fails to respect the character and appearance of the locality and as such, conflicts with Policies CS28 if the Rotherham Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) and saved policy SP55 of the Rotherham Local Plan Sites and Policies (2018) which, when taken as a whole, amongst other matters, expect development to be of high quality and contribute to the character and distinctiveness of an area. I also find conflict with the guidance set out in the Supplementary Planning Guidance – [name].
Section 06
Conclusion
The proposal does not accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that indicate I should take a different decision other than in accordance with this.
For the reasons outlined above, I conclude 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 221No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 23 August 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 30 July 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3342678
- Application reference
- RB2024/0159
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000018
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 16 April 2024
- Valid date
- 5 June 2024
- Start date
- 19 July 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 April 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 23 August 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
- 56126
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21