Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

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 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

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.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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