Appeal 6002642
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
6 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 extension to the front elevation.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the single storey extension to the front elevation at [site address] , Worcester [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00781/HP, 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 drawings and associated documents submitted with the application, titled: Location & Block (Page 1), [name] (Page 2) and [name] (Page 3), dated August 2025.
The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building/dwelling.
Demolition, clearance, or construction works shall take place only between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 Mondays to Fridays and between the hours of 09:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays, and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays. There shall be no deliveries to the development arranged for outside of these approved hours.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property, [site address] (No 188) is a two-storey brick-built mid-terrace house dating from the late 20th century. Vehicular access is to the rear of the property and to the front No 188 has an open, lawned garden area, facing a public footpath and communal grassed area. The front garden slopes down towards No 188 and, in common with its immediate neighbours, the dwelling is set down from the communal area. The building line of the terrace steps forward immediately to the west of No 188, and the appeal property abuts the gable flank wall of the neighbouring [address] (No 186).
The appeal site is in an established residential area, comprising short terraces or semi-detached houses of similar design. The housing estate has an informal layout, with some properties facing the street and other groups facing communal soft landscaped areas. Slight changes in level between houses and occasional mature trees add to the informal character of the immediate area.
The proposed development is a single-storey, flat-roofed extension to the front elevation, situated between the projecting porch to No 188 and the return wall of the gable end of No 186.The front wall of the extension would project forward of the porch by approximately 1.5m and would align with the front wall of the adjacent No 186, and the section of the terrace of which it forms a part.
Although to the front elevation of No 188, the impact of the extension would be significantly reduced due to its siting against the return wall of No 186 and the projecting porch of the host dwelling. Its prominence would also be reduced due to the sunken level of the appeal property relative to the public spaces to the front of the site.
The proposed development would be barely visible in views from the west, and there would be limited visibility of the extension from the confined public spaces opposite and to the east of No 188.
Whilst the flat roof of the proposed extension would not match the pitched roof of the main terrace, the intended roof design would reduce the bulk and prominence of the extension. It would be in a discreet location and its flat-roofed form would not be unexpected in the context of a late 20th century housing estate, particularly given the estate’s informal character. Additionally, the materials of the extension would otherwise match that of the host dwelling.
The South Worcestershire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, (the SPD) 2018, notes the potential vulnerability of front elevations to unsympathetic extensions. However, the extension would not be in a prominent location, due to being within the return with the adjoining gable wall and its set down position. Given these circumstances, allied with the informal layout of buildings in the immediate vicinity, the development would be in accordance with the overall objectives of the SPD.
For the reasons given above the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. Therefore, I find no conflict with Policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan, 2016, in so far as it seeks to promote high quality design which complements the character of an area and responds to surrounding buildings, as well as accordance with policies of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2024, that pertain to the achievement of well-designed places.
Section 05
Conditions
In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty.
I have also imposed a condition for materials to match those used on the existing house to maintain the character and appearance of the area.
Given the proximity of the site to existing dwellings, a condition limiting the hours of construction on the site would be reasonable and necessary in the interests of the living conditions of neighbouring occupants.
In response to the planning application the Council’s Landscape Officer has requested provision of a bird box as biodiversity enhancement. The development would involve the loss of a negligible area of shrubbery and no loss of trees or bushes. On that basis, I am unable to conclude such a condition is necessary.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan, along with all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.
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 4598No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 February 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 January 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6002642
- Application reference
- 25/00781/HP
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Worcester City Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000237
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
- Not recorded
- Appeal reason
- refused
- Type detail
- Householder
- Jurisdiction
- No Jurisdiction Associated
- Link status
- Not recorded
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- 0 hectares
- Floor space
- 5 m²
- Number of residences
- Not recorded
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- 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
- 15 December 2025
- Valid date
- 15 December 2025
- Start date
- 19 December 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 10 February 2026
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- Not recorded
- Bespoke
- Not recorded
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- 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
- Back Office
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 84164
- 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