Appeal 3353076
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
4 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 single storey front extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a two storey end-of-terrace dwelling. It is located in a residential area largely characterised by the presence of two storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings.
Dwellings are set back from the road behind gardens and/or parking areas and have longer gardens to the rear.
During my site visit, I observed that the presence of hedgerows, gardens and grass verges provides for a sense of spaciousness and greenery. I also noted that the similar appearance of dwellings resulting from, amongst other things, similarities in design, fenestration and materials, including the common use of tile and rendering, presents the area with a strong and attractive sense of uniformity.
In this latter regard, I also draw attention to the common build line to the front terraced rows including and close to the appeal dwelling. Other than small projecting canopies above front doors, there are very few examples of built development projecting forwards of the front elevations of dwellings. This is a factor that makes a notable positive contribution to the area’s attractive sense of uniformity.
The proposed front extension would comprise a tall and bulky addition. It would project some considerable distance to the front of appeal dwelling. In this way, it would dominate the front of the appeal dwelling to the extent that it would appear as a large and disproportionate addition.
The harm arising from the above would be exacerbated as a consequence of the proposal drawing undue attention to itself as an incongruous feature, out of keeping with its surroundings. The large forward projecting porch would appear at odds with the rest of the terrace and with other dwellings close to the appeal property, which are notable for their sense of uniformity derived in part from the general absence of large, bulky porches.
Given this, I find that the proposed development would severely disrupt the area’s attractive sense of uniformity. 10.Taking all of the above into account, I consider that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Core Strategy1 Policies DM1 and P3; to Places for Everyone2 Policy JP-P1; and to the Council’s “Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development” Supplementary Planning Document (2016), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
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 601No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 December 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 December 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3353076
- Application reference
- 24/00647/HOUS
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000005
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
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- No
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 3 October 2024
- Valid date
- 11 October 2024
- Start date
- 28 October 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 September 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 17 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
- No
- 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
- 61880
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- 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