Appeal 3368938
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
Erection of a two storey side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Erection of a two storey side extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00801/FUL and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: AX054-P.02
Notwithstanding what appears on the plan hereby approved, the development shall be completed with external facing materials that match the existing building.
Section 03
[name]
[name] have determined this appeal on the basis of the evidence before me, including a site visit and viewing the site from the adjacent house as the Council suggested, I note that, other than what appears in the Decision Notice, the Council have not provided any explanation or reasoning for their decision.
Although the appellant refers to personal reasons for the extension, this was not material to the decision of the Council and not a factor in the determination to be made.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the host dwelling and the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
[site address] is a detached two-storey dwelling dating from the later decades of the twentieth century, which sits in a large plot at the entrance to a small development of nine pairs of semi-detached houses dating from the middle decades of the twentieth century, named ‘[name]. The proposed extension would replace an existing attached single garage and infill the space to the boundary with No.18 [name] (No.18) which, although recently extended at the side, retains a significant width of plot which contains one attached and one detached single garage with some smaller incidental structures behind, along the boundary with the appeal site. The proposal would neither overbear the main garden area of No.18 nor be visually intrusive.
The large gap between the recently extended No.18 and [site address] emphasises the vertical proportions of No.18 in comparison with the horizontal format of the wider semi-detached pairs. Moreover, the mature oak tree which stands at the eastern edge of the [site address] garden where it fronts the main road, tends to prominently associate the appeal site with the main road and the approach into the village, rather than the street view within the [name] cul-de-sac.
It has not been explained why the proposed extension would be ‘incongruous with the rural streetscape’ or ‘disrupt the visual continuity and character of surrounding dwellings’ when [site address] has little in common with the houses adjacent or others nearby, which include examples of post-war industrialised housing. Although the introduction of render would be inappropriate in this location1, and the extension would significantly change the form of the host dwelling, nor would it present as a subordinate side extension, the proposed form would address the visually awkward gap which is currently occupied by garages and sheds or similar buildings that are prominent in the village approach view from the north. I consider the result, subject to the use of suitable materials being used, would be a distinctive building that would make a positive contribution to the northern approach view at the entrance to the village.
The Council’s Decision Notice refers to Policies CS5 and CS6 of the [name] 2011 (SCS). Policy CS5 makes no reference to extensions to existing dwellings and Policy CS6 sets out broad aspirations for high quality design and the enhancement of local distinctiveness. As my reasoning explains I find little conflict with Policy MD02 of the Shropshire Council Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev) Plan 2015 which requires development to contribute to and respect locally distinctive or valued character and existing amenity. Consequently, taking all matters raised into account the appeal succeeds subject to the usual plans and timing conditions with a further condition reflecting my observations as to materials.
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 2574No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 2 September 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 August 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3368938
- Application reference
- 25/00801/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Shropshire County Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000051
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
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 8 July 2025
- Valid date
- 10 July 2025
- Start date
- 10 July 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 17 April 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 2 September 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
- 75676
- 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