Appeal 3361377
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
described as demolition of existing attached garage and car port and erection of new 2 storey extension to side of existing dwelling.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
At the time of my site visit, I saw that the development was partially completed. The application has been submitted retrospectively; I have dealt with the appeal on this basis.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and area in general.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is opposite a supermarket within an area which has various designs of residential properties. The appeal property is semi-detached, sharing features with the adjoining property No. [address] for instance hipped roof and projecting two storey gable. The appeal property and No. [address] to the road, forward of the building line the adjacent properties No’s. 84-90 (odd) [address] create.
Due to the position the development is prominent in the streetscene, unbalancing the semi-detached properties, notwithstanding this I understand that the approved 20201 design would also result in a loss of symmetry to the built form unbalancing the properties.
The design and bulk of the development is not sympathetic to the host property dominating the original form. Despite the variety of buildings in the area, the 1 REF: 20/02491/PLF Appeal Decision: APP/E2001/D/25/3361377 development is incongruous to the area due to its prominent position, scale and design. I find that the development harms the character and appearance of the host property and area in general.
The proposed development would conflict with Policy ENV1 of the East Riding Local Plan 2012-2029, [name] (2016) which amongst other things seeks to support the delivery of high-quality design.
There is also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) and the National Design Guide which seeks to ensure developments are of good design appropriate and sympathetic to their surroundings
Section 06
Conclusion
For the above reasons I conclude that 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 126No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 20 May 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 12 May 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3361377
- Application reference
- 24/03434/PLF
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- East Riding of Yorkshire Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000011
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
- 26 February 2025
- Valid date
- 11 March 2025
- Start date
- 25 March 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 20 January 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 20 May 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
- 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
- 69726
- 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