Appeal 6002959
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
single storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/0085/FF, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: Location Plan (scale 1:1250) and [name] and [name]. 002 [name].
Section 03
[name]
The description of development in the above banner heading has been taken from the original application form. The Council’s decision notice includes the demolition of the existing conservatory, and I have determined the appeal accordingly.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of number [address] (No. 55) with particular regard to outlook.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property relates to a semi-detached dormer bungalow which is enclosed by a tall fence to the rear which separates the property from its neighbour at No. 55 which is located to the south.
The host property already benefits from a conservatory to the rear, and the proposed development would replace this structure with a single storey rear extension.
The existing conservatory projects approximately 4 metres from the rear and whilst the proposed extension would be wider and taller to its ridge given its apex nature, it would project less from the rear elevation being 3.8 metres in depth. It would also remain to be single storey of a low height.
The extension would be visible from No. 55. However, its low height and apex roof form, together with its limited overall depth ensures that the proposed development would not represent a visually overbearing/dominating feature for the occupiers of No. 55. Further, I do not find the proposed extension to be of notable size over and above that of the existing conservatory which already sits close to the neighbouring boundary. Its proposed solid mass would not alter my findings as it is an acceptable size/design for a residential property in this location. Any impact over and above the existing conservatory would be minimal and would not detrimentally alter the relationship that exists between the host property and No.55.
I appreciate that due to the projection of the extension from the rear elevation, it would be a breach against the guidelines set out in the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document, 2013 (SPD). However, the existing conservatory already extends further than that proposed, and I find that the proposed development does not conflict with the overall principle of the guidelines which amongst other matters, encourage sympathetic designs that respect the original property and surrounding area.
Given that the extension is replacing an existing conservatory and is acceptable in size and scale, I conclude that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 55 in relation to outlook. The proposed development would therefore comply with Policy SD4 (b) of the [site address] Local Plan, 2018 which explains amongst other matters that development will be permitted where it will not have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of occupiers of existing or proposed nearby land and buildings. For the same reasons, the proposed development would also accord with the guidance contained within the SPD.
Section 06
Conditions
Conditions relating to the standard time for commencement of development and a plans condition are necessary in the interests of certainty. A condition relating to materials is also required in the interests of the satisfactory appearance of the development.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given above and having had regard to the development plan as a whole, the appeal is allowed, and planning permission is given subject to the attached 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 4321No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 11 March 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 3 March 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6002959
- Application reference
- R/2025/0085/FF
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000003
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
- 330 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
- 21 December 2025
- Valid date
- 21 December 2025
- Start date
- 15 January 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 29 September 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 11 March 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
- 85755
- 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