Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3371752

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 works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

7 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

New single storey rear and side extension

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear and side extension at Hazlewood, [site address] , Storth [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application Ref 2025/1141/HOU and subject to the conditions in the below schedule.

    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 drawing nos location plan 03, Proposed floor/site plans and elevations 04.

    No development above ground level shall take place until details / samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details / samples.

  2. Section 03

    Preliminary Matters

    Arnside and Silverdale is a designated National Landscape. The area’s special beauty is recognised for its low limestone hills and pavements, woodlands, mosses and character of the coastal landscape with its wetland and interesting structure as a consequence. The overall effect is one of a very distinctive natural landscape character worthy of national designation. The appeal site is within the settlement of Storth and forms part of the Arnside and Silverdale Area of Natural Beauty.

  3. Section 04

    Main Issue

    The main issue is whether or not the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the special beauty of the Arnside and Silverdale National Landscape.

  4. Section 05

    Reasons

    In this sensitive location, the Arnside & Silverdale National Landscape identifies as a strong sense of place and should be protected from inappropriate development and enhanced in accordance with local development plan policy. This is further reinforced by the Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Development Plan [name] 2019.

    The appeal site is located within the centre of the Storth settlement, surrounded by dwellings where the vernacular is of a mixed style, age and character although the settlement maintains a rural context. Hazlewood is a traditional two storey stone constructed dwelling reflective of the more typical historical characteristics of Storth. It is most likely a late 18th century/early 19th century example of a dwelling associated with the rural/farming community. It has a rear return and has been extended previously at ground floor level and is attached to another dwelling.

    The proposal for a wraparound extension would be designed with a vaulted peaked roof and flat roof side element using modern materials of copper coloured aluminium cladding, GRP to the roof, high levels of glazing elements and aluminium metal, with some traditional stone and render materials also incorporated. A new first floor window would also be included in the proposal.

    It would take cues from the design of the original pitched roof with glazing elements to break up its massing, together with characteristic stone and render finish. The proposed extension would have the properties of a lightweight structure and proportionately in scale with the host dwelling. The design, materials and its massing would ensure the proposal appears as a subordinate extension to the dwelling.

    It would be visible in part from [site address] above the existing boundary stone walling although this would be in limited public views. The rear elevation is visible from [address] above the boundary wall as it rises slightly to the east and falls again. Therefore, a greater proportion of the proposal would be visible from outside the site from this vantage. The houses behind the appeal site are late 20 th century examples with, in the main, limited architectural merit. Given the location within the settlement and surrounding dwellings, and as it would be a low-level extension, it would be absorbed amongst the surrounding built environment, despite being articulated as a contemporary extension and using modern materials. Despite local policy advice for development to encompass traditional materials, as a modern extension to a traditional building, in this circumstance, it would be fitting as a 21st century contrast. It would not appear as a stark or incongruous extension.

    I am not of the view that the proposed extension would affect the special qualities of the Arnside and Silverdale National Landscape. It would be a small-scale extension within this part of the settlement surrounded by a mix of dwelling types and ages and varying styles and quality. It would be well contained within this dense grain and pattern of buildings and seen in limited views throughout the settlement. It would have a very limited effect upon views into and out of the Area of Natural Beauty. The distinctive character that embodies the protected natural landscape would be conserved.

    To conclude on this main issue, the proposal would safeguard the natural beauty of the Arnside and Silverdale Area of Natural Beauty. It would therefore comply with the broad protection aims of Policy CS8.2 of the South Lakeland Development Framework Core Strategy 2010 and the Policies AS02 and AS08 of the Arnside and Silverdale Area of Natural Beauty Development Plan Document March 2019.

  5. Section 06

    Conditions

    With regards to paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework, I impose a plans condition and time limit condition in the interest of good planning. The materials are listed within the appeal submission. However, given the sensitive location, the precise detail shall be submitted to the Council for approval prior to works above ground level.

  6. Section 07

    Conclusion

    For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.

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 296No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    20 October 2025Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    1 October 2025 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3371752
Application reference
2025/1141/HOU
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Westmorland and Furness Council
Planning authority code
Not recorded

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
Unknown
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
26 August 2025
Valid date
2 September 2025
Start date
2 September 2025
Planning authority decision date
11 August 2025
Appeal decision date
20 October 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
78258
First seen
20 August 2026 at 14:25
Last seen
20 August 2026 at 16:29
Removed from release
Not recorded
Record created
20 August 2026 at 14:25
Record updated
24 August 2026 at 16:21