Appeal 3353790
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
the erection of a two-storey extension to the side of the property above the existing single-storey side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issues are the effects of the proposed extension, first, on the character and appearance of the host dwelling at No19 and the street scene of [address] as a whole and, second, on the amenity of the neighbouring property at No17, with particular regard to natural lighting.
Section 04
Character and Appearance
I consider that the proposed extension is inherently well designed, in character with the style and finish of the present house, with its lower-level hipped roof maintaining a reasonable degree of subservience to the main dwelling. Despite the appearance of a second front entrance porch to the proposed office, the front elevation would retain a generally harmonious appearance in its detailing and fenestration. Accordingly, I find no objection in terms of the character and appearance of the host dwelling itself.
Crucially, however, the proposed extension would stand very close to the side of No17, virtually closing the first-floor gap that presently exists between the two properties. This gap is typical of the otherwise varied street scene where, although the dwellings are close together, substantial distance has invariably been maintained between them at the upper level. Importantly, this has avoided any terracing effect that would be damaging to street character.
In the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, on the opposite side of No19, there is a clear gap to the side of No21. [name] 17 and 15, the gap is narrower but the space appears sufficient to distinguish the two buildings visually.
I consider that, in contrast, the proposed extension would appear to create terracing effect with No17. This would be unacceptably damaging to the street scene of [address] as a whole.
As a result, the proposed development would be contrary Policy SWDP21 of the adopted Development Plan which, consistent with national policy, requires new development to be of high-quality design, integrating with its surroundings.
Section 05
Amenity
The proposed two-storey side extension would extend relatively far back into the rear garden of No19 and appear significantly more prominent from the rear of No17. It would have the effect of reducing, to some degree, the amount of direct natural light reaching the neighbouring property from the north.
However, it does not appear to me that this effect would be so great as to cause a level of adverse impact on the living conditions at No 17 to alone to warrant substantive planning objection on grounds of residential amenity. I note incidentally that, in this connection, there is no objection from the neighbouring residents who express qualified support for the appeal.
Section 06
Overall Conclusion
Overall, I conclude that, for the sole reason of adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene, this 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 1576No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 15 January 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 18 December 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3353790
- Application reference
- 24/00560/HP
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Worcester City Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000237
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
- 31 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- 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
- No
- 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
- 15 October 2024
- Valid date
- 15 October 2024
- Start date
- 31 October 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 1 October 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 15 January 2025
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
- 62921
- 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