Appeal 3276936
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 first floor side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural matter
I have taken the description of development from the Council’s decision notice as it is clearer than that used on the appellant’s application form.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and street scene.
Section 05
Reasons
Whilst the appeal dwelling already benefits from a first floor side extension, this is set well back from the front elevation of the property and therefore maintains the space between the appeal property and the neighbouring property, No [address]. By contrast, the proposed first floor extension would sit flush with the front elevation of the host dwelling. The resultant front elevation would span the full width of the plot and would bring the appellant’s home closer to No 42. Whilst the two properties are separated by a public footpath and the roof of the proposed extension would be set down, given the angles at which the properties sit, this would create a visual pinch point and have a cramped appearance. This would also have an unacceptable terracing effect which would unduly harm the openness of the street.
In view of the above, the appeal scheme would significantly harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the streetscene. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies D4, D7, D8 and D9 of Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan (2006), Black Country Core Strategy (2011) Policy ENV3, Section 4.3 of Extensions to Houses Supplementary Planning Guidance 4 (1996) and Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework which, taken together, seek to secure high quality design which respects the context of the existing dwelling and area.
Section 06
Other matters
I note that the proposed extension would utilise materials which are similar to the existing dwelling, that the proposal would make good use of existing space and that there have been anti-social problems associated with the adjacent path in the past. However, none of these matters outweigh the harm that I have identified.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be 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 301No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 October 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 October 2012 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3276936
- Application reference
- 21/00245/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Wolverhampton City Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000031
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
- 1. Refused planning permission
- 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
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- No
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 11 June 2021
- Valid date
- 11 June 2021
- Start date
- 25 August 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 27 April 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 18 October 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
- 4768
- 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