Appeal 6004657
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
erection of single-storey front extension to dwellinghouse.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of single-storey front extension to dwellinghouse at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02961/FUL, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings titled: Location Plan; and Existing and [name] and Front, Side and [name].
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
For the sake of clarity and brevity I have taken the description of development from the Council’s decision notice.
At my site visit I saw that the proposed development was mostly constructed. I have assessed the appeal on this basis.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
The area surrounding the appeal site is characterised predominantly as a residential area with a row of mid-20th century semi-detached dwellings. The built development is not uniformed, with properties having differing materials as well as varying features including a mix of single storey and two storey bay windows, porches and canopies. It is this mixed built form that contributes to the character of the street scene.
The Council refer to neighbouring property [address] which has a similar front extension that resulted in the removal of a bay window. At my site visit, I saw numerous other properties to the south of the appeal site that also did not have bay windows and therefore interrupted the pattern of bay windows in the street. In this respect, the loss of the bay window as part of the proposal does not differ from the appearance of these other dwellings in the street and does not appear out of place.
The design of the proposal, including its width, blends in with the mixed style of properties in the area and is not a dominant structure. The proposal is in keeping with the prevailing character of the street scene and is not an incongruous feature that is detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.
The proposal does not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposed development is in accordance with saved Policy H14 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan and Policy CS74 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy which expects high-quality development and seeks extensions to be well designed and be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings.
Section 06
Conditions
The Council have not suggested the imposition of any planning conditions. [name] am unsure as to whether the extension was fully completed, to ensure certainty I have imposed a condition relating to the identification of plans.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I conclude the appeal should be allowed.
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 173No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 11 May 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 May 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6004657
- Application reference
- 25/02961/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Sheffield City Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000019
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
- 5 February 2026
- Valid date
- 5 February 2026
- Start date
- 12 February 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 3 December 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 11 May 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
- 88586
- 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