Appeal 6003780
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
a loft conversion with dormer. Front porch to be added.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
The Council does not raise any concerns in respect of the front porch therefore the focus of this appeal is the loft conversion with dormer.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed dormer on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a single storey bungalow with first floor accommodation within the roof space occupying a corner plot on the junction of [address] and Rush Green Road. The properties on [address] are largely uniform in character and appearance with similar roofs. The appeal property is set back and perpendicular to others on [address] and is a notable feature at the entrance to the road. However, while a hedge, fencing and mature trees provide some screening to the elevations of the property, the roof is a prominent feature when viewed from Rush Green Road.
There are a number of dormers visible on [address], Rush Green Road, [address] and [address], but these are mostly subordinate to the original roof or not prominent features.
The Council’s SPD on [name] seeks to ensure that dormers should always appear subordinate to the roof and their height and length kept to a minimum. The proposed dormer would span a substantial length of the roof and the ridge line of the house would be raised. Whilst the raising of the ridge height would not be visually out of keeping for the area, the scale of the proposed dormer would not be subordinate to the roof and would not be consistent with the guidance contained in the SPD.
While the front elevation would retain a balanced appearance and the dormer would be stepped back from the front and rear gables, the shape, size and form of the dormer would appear excessively large and disproportionate to the simple shallow pitch roof of the existing structure. It would be a particularly prominent and incongruous feature from Rush Green Road where the dormer would be seen at close proximity above the fence line, and from the entrance of [address]. Consequently, the dormer extension would appear harmfully out of place when viewed from adjacent roads and a discordant feature that would fail to harmonise with the existing property.
I therefore conclude that the proposed dormer would harm the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with Policy DC6 of the Warrington Local Plan where it seeks to ensure that development makes a positive contribution to local character having regard to such issues as scale, height and massing.
Section 06
Other Matters
I have considered the appeal on its own merits based on the scheme before me. The possibility of an amended scheme and the issues regarding the handling of the application by the Council are not matters for me to consider here.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given above 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 6255No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 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
- 6003780
- Application reference
- 2025/01125/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
- 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
- 43 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 17 January 2026
- Valid date
- 17 January 2026
- Start date
- 28 January 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 27 October 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 17 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
- 86053
- 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