Appeal 3348953
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
two storey & single storey pitched roof extensions to side.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed extensions on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a semi-detached two-storey house on the corner of [address] and [address]. The house has previously been extended with single storey side and rear extensions together with a front porch. The house is in a particularly prominent location due to its corner location at the mini-roundabout junction and the position of the neighbouring terraced row of properties to the south and the curve of the road.
The Council indicates that it finds the two storey side extension acceptable and given the design of the house and its existing extensions, I agree. However, the additional single storey element would enlarge the width of the house disproportionally. This would be particularly evident when viewed in the context of its attached neighbour, which although having been extended, this is by a single storey extension only. Furthermore, the overall bulk and massing of the proposed extensions cumulatively would reduce the openness of this property in a very prominent location.
Whilst there is a boundary wall to the side of the house which would partly obscure the single storey element, especially when viewed close up, the prominence of the house and its open side space means that this element would stand out as an excessive sidewards projection when viewed in its wider context.
The combined effect of the two storey and single storey extensions would extend the width of the house by more than 3 metres and by more than half the width of the original house which would conflict with the guidelines set out in the Council’s SPD for householder developments1. Although there are no clear building lines in this case, the location of the house means it is particularly prominent and therefore the width of the proposed extensions in relation to the original house would reduce the openness of this corner plot.
Consequently, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and conflict with Local Plan Policy LPD042 which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that extensions to an existing dwelling respects and/or enhances the appearance and character of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area.
Section 05
Other Matters
Although no concerns have been raised with regard to traffic, or any effects including light or view to neighbours, these lack of harms do not overcome the harm I have identified. The appellant refers to other examples of similar proposals in the area but no details have been provided.
Section 06
Conclusion
The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Consequently, 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 4161No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 11 December 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 10 December 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3348953
- Application reference
- P/2024/0286/HHFP
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000013
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
- 27 July 2024
- Valid date
- 31 July 2024
- Start date
- 20 August 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 24 July 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 11 December 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
- 61683
- 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 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21