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 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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