Skip to main content
Rules for YouPlanning, made clearerMenu
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

Appeal 3276154

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

9 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 - Length: 3.8m, Height: 2.5m, Height to eaves: 2.0m - a timber roof over the existing patio supported on 3 timber posts and attached to the building rear wall, covered with polycarbonate, no walls.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. Section 03

    Appeal Procedure

    The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

  3. Section 04

    Application for costs

    An application for costs was made by [name] against Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate

  4. Section 05

    Preliminary Matters

    Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, [Part 1, Class A] of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions.

    An application is necessary to determine whether prior approval is required for development which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g) to Part 1. [name].4(3) provides that the local planning authority may refuse such an application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply – or that the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development.

  5. Section 06

    Main Issue

    The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.

  6. Section 07

    Reasons for the Recommendation

    To benefit from the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, [name].4 the proposed development must comply with paragraph A3, which requires that the materials used in any exterior work (other than materials used in the construction of a conservatory) shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse. In this case the proposed polycarbonate roof would not have a similar appearance to the tiled roof of the host dwelling. It is suggested that it would have a similar appearance to the glass windows, but there are significant differences in the composition, transparency, and texture of the two materials, such that the contrast would be readily apparent.

    Consequently, whilst the dimensions and location of the proposal would meet the limitations of the GDPO, the proposed materials of the roof would not match those of the existing dwellinghouse. The development would not, therefore, comply with the conditions set out at paragraph A3, so would not be permitted development.

    Whilst polycarbonate may have been used in the construction of buildings nearby, the requirements of the GPDO only relate to the existing dwellinghouse. The merits of the proposal are not a matter for consideration under the prior approval provisions set out in the GDPO. Consideration of these matters would require the submission of a planning application to the local planning authority.

  7. Section 08

    Conclusion and Recommendation

    For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

  8. Section 09

    Inspector’s Decision

    I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and, on that basis, I agree with the recommendation and 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 377No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    15 September 2021Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    31 August 2021 (page 1)

  • Costs Decision

    Extracted inspector · page 1
    Inspector attribution ID 377No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    15 September 2021Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    31 August 2021 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3276154
Application reference
PDE/346166/21
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council
Planning authority code
E08000004

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
3. Refused prior approval of permitted development rights
Appeal reason
Refusal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
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
14 m²
Number of residences
0
Site in Green Belt
No
Agricultural holding
No
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
31 May 2021
Valid date
31 May 2021
Start date
19 July 2021
Planning authority decision date
8 March 2021
Appeal decision date
15 September 2021

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
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
Horizon
Dataset status
Current release
Catalogue record ID
3249
First seen
20 August 2026 at 14:24
Last seen
20 August 2026 at 16:25
Removed from release
Not recorded
Record created
20 August 2026 at 14:24
Record updated
24 August 2026 at 16:21
Back to appeals databaseRequest a correction or privacy review