Appeal 3345063
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
a double storey side extension and wrap around single storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the streetscene and the existing dwelling.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling, which is situated in a residential estate, within the built-up area of Peterborough. A distinctive characteristic of [address] is the gaps between the side walls of the buildings, which help to give a spacious appearance to the streetscene.
The proposal is to construct a two-storey side extension with a wrap around single-storey rear extension. The additions would provide a garage, study, and dining area on the ground-floor and two additional bedrooms on the first-floor. The extension would be built up to the shared side boundary with the neighbouring block of flats at numbers [address], and consequently, it would infill the existing gap between the properties.
Policy LP16 of the adopted Peterborough Local Plan states (amongst other things) that all development proposals should positively contribute to the character and local distinctiveness of the area. It goes on to state that proposals should respond to local patterns of development, including spaces between buildings.
[name] have no objection to large extensions in principle, and the proposal would be large in comparison to the existing property, I consider that the two-storey element proposal would conflict with Policy LP16, because it would result in the closure of the space between the appeal property and the neighbouring building. As stated above, these spaces are a distinctive feature along [address] and the proposal would create a terracing effect that would be unacceptably harmful to the appearance of both the appeal dwelling and the streetscene.
In reaching my decision, I have noted the appellant’s willingness to work with the Council to achieve an acceptable scheme and I recommend that these discussions between the two parties continue, if possible.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal 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 203No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 23 September 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 September 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3345063
- Application reference
- 23/01744/HHFUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Peterborough City Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000031
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
- 10 m²
- 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
- 24 May 2024
- Valid date
- 11 June 2024
- Start date
- 22 July 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 18 April 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 23 September 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
- 57436
- 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