Appeal 3355767
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
a part-two, part-single storey rear extension and two-storey side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed two-storey, side extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
No 95 is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling located within a residential area. The surrounding area is characterised by similarly designed dwellings. Dwellings have gaps to the side which results in a regular street scene and provides a sense of space which is important to the character of the area.
Two-storey, side extensions are not a common feature within the street scene. The few that I observed on my site visit were generally situated on corner plots and where a gap to the side of the dwelling was maintained. It has also been drawn to my attention that they were constructed prior to the adoption of the [name] and [name] (2021) (SPD). Furthermore, the extension’s highlighted by the appellant are located some distance from the appeal site and do not form part of the street scene.
[name] 1 of the SPD states extensions should be in keeping with the appearance, scale, design and local character of the area and the street scene. Furthermore, [name] 2 states extensions should not dominate or be larger than the original house and should be in keeping with the existing building in terms of scale, materials and detail.
The extension would not comply with the SPD as it would not maintain a 1 metre gap to the side boundary. The two-storey, side extension would fill the gap to the side which would erode the sense of space and rhythm of the area. By reason of the extension’s scale, design and siting, it would be a discordant and incongruous addition which would fail to respect or enhance the form and layout of the surrounding area, and would detract from the host building. The appellant highlights that the development would provide much needed additional living space, but that would not outweigh the harm I have found.
For these reasons, the proposed two-storey, side extension would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy LP24 of the Kirklees Local Plan: Strategy and Policies (2019). This seeks, amongst other things, to promote good design by ensuring extensions are subservient to the original building, are in keeping with the existing buildings as well as ensuring it respects and enhances the character of the townscape. In addition, it would conflict with chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states developments should be sympathetic to local character, and the aforementioned SPD key design principles.
Section 05
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 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 603No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 February 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 10 February 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3355767
- Application reference
- 2024/62/92263/E
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Kirklees Metropolitan Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000034
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
- 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
- 19 November 2024
- Valid date
- 19 November 2024
- Start date
- 3 December 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 October 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 27 February 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
- 65363
- 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