Appeal 3278202
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 single storey rear garden room.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of No [address], in terms of loss of outlook and light.
Section 04
Reasons
The proposed single storey rear extension would sit on the boundary with neighbouring property, No 75, and would project around 7.5 metres beyond the rear elevations of both properties. Given the excessive depth of this structure, as well as its position on the joint boundary, it would unacceptably harm the level of natural daylight to the French doors in the rear elevation of the neighbour’s property.
The proposed extension would also create an unacceptable sense of overbearing and enclosure to No 75. The neighbouring property includes a two-storey rear projection. This, coupled with the overall mass of the proposed extension, would have a harmful tunnelling effect on the outlook of the neighbouring property.
In view of the above, the proposed extension would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the existing, and any future residents, of No 75 and would reduce enjoyment of that property. The appeal scheme would therefore be contrary to policies D7, D8 and H6 of Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan (2006), Black Country Core Strategy (2011) Policy ENV3, Paragraph 3.9 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 protects the living conditions of neighbouring residents.
Section 05
Other matters
I recognise that the existing residents of No 75 have not objected to the proposal. However, given that I have found harm to the living conditions of the existing and any future residents of that property, this does not alter my
Section 06
decision.
The appellant indicates that the neighbours at No 75 also plan to extend their property, to align with the appeal proposal. The appellant also refers to a fallback position, stating that the appeal proposal would only be slightly larger than an extension which would be allowed under permitted development rights. However, I only have very limited information before me in respect of both of these possible structures. Therefore, in the absence of any clear evidence or certainty that either extension would be constructed, I attach limited weight to this in support of allowing the appeal.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given, 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
- 3278202
- Application reference
- 21/00629/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
- 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
- 1 July 2021
- Valid date
- 6 July 2021
- Start date
- 25 August 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 1 July 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
- 4775
- 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