Appeal 3371678
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
a front porch extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a front porch extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, reference CHE/25/00287/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 25/701, 25/702 and 25/703.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces shall match those used in the existing dwelling.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The properties in the area are of a generally uniform appearance, being of simple designs with hipped roofs. Front porches are not common within the area as the frontages are generally unaltered from when first built. Small door canopies are more common although not a uniform feature. There is an example of a similar, although wider porch, within the street.
The proposed porch would be of a simple design with matching materials and a lean-to roof. The element relating to the front door would be of a size similar to that which could normally be erected under permitted development rights. However, it is proposed to extend this beyond the front door area to provide a ground floor toilet. It would however not extend across the full width of the frontage. Given its depth, overall height and width, it would remain as a relatively subservient addition to the frontage of the property. With matching materials as proposed, it would not detract from the appearance of the house. Appeal Decision: APP/A1015/D/25/3371678
It would be set back from the front boundary but it would, nevertheless, be relatively prominent. Although it would represent a new feature within the street scene, it would not materially alter the wider character of the area as it would be of a suitable design and scale for its position.
The proposed porch would represent a positive investment and would result in an improvement to the living accommodation of the property. It would be of a size and design that would not result in harm to the character or appearance of this area. It would not therefore conflict with the design aspirations of policy CLP20 of the Chesterfield Borough Local Plan 2020; or the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. As there are no matters that weigh significantly against the proposal, I allow the appeal.
I have imposed conditions relating to the commencement of development and the details of the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. I have imposed a condition to require that the materials would match the existing to ensure that the development would have a satisfactory appearance.
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 341No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 30 September 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 September 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3371678
- Application reference
- CHE/25/00287/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Chesterfield Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000034
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
- 22 August 2025
- Valid date
- 22 August 2025
- Start date
- 27 August 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 2 July 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 30 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
- 77158
- 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