Appeal 3279583
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
6 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
two storey side extension and front porch.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey side extension and front porch at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P21/0758, dated 12 April 2021, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name] 02/A, [name] 04/A and location plan.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
Section 03
Main Issue
The effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property (No 22) is a semi-detached house in a cul-de-sac of similar properties. The first floor of the proposed extension would be flush with the front wall of the house and the roof ridge height would match that of the existing. In such circumstances the Council’s Planning Guidance Note 17 (PGN17) requires a first floor set back and the roof to be set down from the existing ridge height in order to maintain subservience, to preserve the symmetry of the semi-detached pair and to prevent a terracing effect.
However, PGN17 also states that a set back will be required unless ‘there is a stagger in the building line’. In this appeal, the building line between Nos 22 and 23 is staggered significantly. In these circumstances there would not be a resulting terracing effect and in my judgement the proposed extension would not appear dominant. Whilst the extension would unbalance the symmetry of the semi-detached pair, this would not be to the detriment of the street scene due to the varied building lines and would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
The alterations to the ground floor front elevation would be modest and in keeping with similar canopies and porches in the street scene. I agree with the Council that they are acceptable.
For the reasons set out, the scale and design of the proposed development, would comply with Dudley Borough Development Strategy (2017) Policy L1 - Housing Development, extensions and alterations to existing dwellings and Policy S6 - [name]. There would be no conflict with PGN17 or Black Country Core Strategy (2011) Policy ENV2 - [name] and Local Distinctiveness. The proposal would be consistent with the design policies of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Section 05
Conditions
For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning I have identified the approved plans in a condition. A further condition is necessary which requires the use of matching materials in order to safeguard the appearance of the area.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above 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 322No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 20 January 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 January 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3279583
- Application reference
- P21/0758
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000027
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
- 26 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 23 July 2021
- Valid date
- 23 July 2021
- Start date
- 24 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 5 July 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 20 January 2022
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 9156
- 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