Appeal 3354892
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
erection of new single storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
The planning application the subject of this appeal was supported by a single plan1. This plan relates to Number [address] and shows the proposed development in the context of Number [address]. The plan does not relate to the appeal property.
The appellant subsequently submitted a revised plan2 relating to the application address.
However, this revised plan shows an existing form of development that would appear to suggest that the development the subject of the revised plan has been completed.
This would be contrary to the application form, which states that the proposed development has neither commenced nor been completed.
During my site visit, I observed that a form of development has taken place at the appeal site. However, the development in situ appears unfinished.
In addition to all of the above, the revised plan appears to set out a proposal which does not appear to relate to the detailed information provided on the application form.
Given all of this, I am unable to reconcile the planning application, the revised plan and the situation on the ground. 1 Reference: 20240102-01, dated 10/06/2024. 2 Reference: 20240102-01 [name], dated 30/09/24.
The original plan did not relate to the appeal site. The revised plan does not relate to the application form. Whilst a form of development appears to have commenced at the appeal site, the application form states that this is not the case.
Taking all of this into account, I do not have sufficient accurate information before me to consider the effects of the proposed development – whatever that might be - and consequently, I cannot reach any other conclusion than that set out below.
Section 04
Conclusion
The appeal does not succeed.
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
- 22 January 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 January 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3354892
- Application reference
- 71054
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Stoke-on-Trent City Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000021
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
- Unknown
- 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
- 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
- 1 November 2024
- Valid date
- 1 November 2024
- Start date
- 26 November 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 25 October 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 22 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
- 63299
- 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