Appeal 3362904
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
front and rear single storey extensions.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for front and rear single storey extensions at [site address] , Kirklees, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2024/62/93543/E, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions below:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision;
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the original building.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
The Council notes that a previous application for the “demolition of rear utility and front conservatory and erection of single storey” was refused1.
The Council raises no concerns with the proposed extensions to the rear of the appeal property and consequently, this decision focuses on the proposed front extension.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property comprises a stone-built detached bungalow located in a relatively prominent position inside a bend along [address]. The topography of the 1 Reference: 2022/92268. area results in the dwelling sitting higher than dwellings on the opposite side of [address].
The appeal property is located in a residential area characterised by the presence of stone-built bungalows set back from the road behind front gardens and with parking areas to the side and further gardens to the rear. The presence of gardens, gaps between dwellings and views to the countryside beyond provides for a green and spacious character.
During my site visit, I observed that dwellings along this part of [address] appear notable for their uniform appearance. This is particularly derived from similarities in the height and size of dwellings, the predominance of brown timber-framed windows and the common use of stone and tile materials.
I also noted during my site visit that the appeal dwelling’s existing front conservatory appears incongruous within a street scene where no other such addition exists. The conservatory’s prominent position at the front of the dwelling and its extensive glazing results in the host dwelling appearing in contrast with the more solid, stone-built frontages of neighbouring dwellings. In this way, the presence of the conservatory detracts from the area’s otherwise attractive sense of uniformity.
The proposed development to the front of the appeal dwelling would replace the existing conservatory with a single storey stone-built extension. Whilst it would project slightly further forward than the conservatory it would replace, the proposed front extension would be considerably less wide. Further, the proposed front extension would be constructed of stone and tiles to match the host dwelling. 10.I find that these factors would combine to result in an extension that would appear modest in scale, in proportion with the existing dwelling and considerably more in keeping with neighbouring dwellings than the conservatory that it would replace. The proposed hipped roof would be less wide than the hipped roof of the existing conservatory and would sit below and appear subservient to the main roof. It would tie in well with the dwelling’s roofscape, leading the proposal to appear as a sensitively designed modern addition constructed with appropriately matching materials. 11.Consequently, rather than fail to respect the character of the host dwelling and appear discordant in the street scene, the proposed front extension would complement the appearance of the appeal dwelling and make a positive contribution to [address]’s attractive uniform qualities. 12.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Kirklees Local Plan Strategy and Policies (2019) Policy LP24; or to the [address] Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2021), 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
- 29 May 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 9 May 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3362904
- Application reference
- 2024/62/93543/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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 24 March 2025
- Valid date
- 24 March 2025
- Start date
- 27 March 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 29 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
- 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
- 70222
- 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