Appeal 3347681
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
removal of existing carport and erection of 2 storey side extension with render to walls.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a brick built two-storey semi-detached dwelling located within a residential area of mixed dwelling types. The appeal property is within a row of semi-detached dwellings of similar design.
The proposal is for a two-storey side extension, facilitated by the removal of an existing open side car port. It is proposed to create a garage and utility room at ground floor, with an additional bedroom at first floor. The extension will run from the existing dwelling to the boundary which is approximately 2.6m, without a set back to the front or rear, and would be faced in render.
As a result, the proposal is not subservient to the main dwelling, which unbalances the pair of semi-detached properties, creating a terracing effect, as well as affecting the visual gap between the pairs of semi-detached dwellings. The appellant has concerns regarding the useable space if setback/setdown was required, but I find that the harm to the character and appearance of the area would be far greater than any improvement to the appellant’s personal situation by the additional space.
With regard to the use of render for the extension, this is not ideal, but in the event of an approval, this could be conditioned to use materials matching the host dwelling, to maintain the character and appearance of the area. I note the comments of the appellant in relation to nearby properties having similar treatments but the use of render in this particular line of properties would look discordant and out of place.
As such, I find conflict with policy CLP20 of the Chesterfield Borough Local Plan (2020) which, amongst other matters, expects development to promote good design and respect the character, form and setting of the site.
Section 05
Conclusion
The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no other considerations that outweigh this conflict. For the reasons outlined above, 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 221No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 5 November 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 October 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3347681
- Application reference
- CHE/24/00060/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Chesterfield Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000034
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
- 1
- 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
- 8 July 2024
- Valid date
- 8 July 2024
- Start date
- 21 August 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 6 June 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 5 November 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
- 59521
- 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