Appeal 3375743
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
8 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
for a single storey rear extension with two storey side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure
The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.
Section 04
[name] and Main Issue
The Council raised no concern regarding the proposed single storey rear extension, and I find no reason to disagree. My recommendation therefore focusses on the two storey side extension. The main issue in regard to which is its effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons for the Recommendation
The appeal site comprises a two storey semi-detached property, with an existing single storey side and rear extension, in a residential area. It occupies a prominent corner plot with a generous side gap, a front driveway and a large rear garden. A wide alleyway also runs along at the rear. As such, the openness around the appeal building results in a sense of spaciousness along [address], which contributes positively to the area’s character and appearance.
The proposed first floor front window within the two storey side extension would not align vertically with the opening below. However, it would be centrally positioned within the side extension and match the height of the existing first floor front windows. The proposed extension would also be setback from the front and side at first floor and be finished in matching materials.
Nonetheless, it would fail to provide a one metre gap to the side at first floor and would exceed 50% of the width of the original house. As such, it would not accord with the House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2021. Its close proximity to the side boundary, two storey scale and wide and bulky form would constitute a dominating and disproportionate addition to the original dwelling. Although the ridge height would be below the main roofline, the reduction would only be marginal and would not create a truly subordinate appearance. It would also erode the sense of spaciousness currently experienced to the side of the property, resulting in an unduly prominent and obtrusive structure that would unacceptably diminish the open character along this part of [address].
Whilst the proposal would align with the side wall of Number [address], the considerable distance between the two properties results in them not being read as part of the same building line. This end terrace also occupies a much smaller plot and was originally constructed along the edge of the footway. The appeal scheme would not be sufficiently comparable to the existing two storey side extensions on [address], given that these are not located on corner plot properties and they generally retain an appropriate side gap. The rear garden could be accessed via alternative points, but this does not go on to justify the appeal scheme, given that the identified harm extends to matters other than access arrangements.
Therefore, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. It would be contrary to Policy DC6 of the Warrington Local Plan 2023. Amongst other things, this policy seeks to ensure all development proposals are of good design.
Section 06
Other Matters
There is no sufficiently conclusive evidence to demonstrate that the appellant’s evolving household needs cannot be met through alternative measures, which might have a lesser impact than the appeal scheme. I remain to be convinced that the proposal is the only way to achieve the outcome the appellant desires. Any concerns over a lack of engagement from the Council should be taken up with them directly and is not for me to resolve here. The retention of sufficient parking spaces would also not override the identified harm, for the reasons set out above.
Section 07
Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed.
Section 08
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.
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 1895No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 6 February 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 5 January 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3375743
- Application reference
- 2025/01035/FULH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Warrington Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000007
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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 12 November 2025
- Valid date
- 25 November 2025
- Start date
- 25 November 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 24 September 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 6 February 2026
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
- 83973
- 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