Appeal 3280712
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
5 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
first floor side extension above existing garage to form: 1 additional bedroom plus extension to existing bedroom.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The proposed side extension would be flush with the front of the house. There would be no design break to ensure that the extension remains subservient in scale and form to the existing dwelling. Furthermore, without a set back at first floor level the extension would create a terracing effect with the adjacent properties such as to harm the character and appearance of the street scene.
The adjoining property, No [address] was extended to the side and front at ground and first floor levels following an approval in 1992. This development therefore pre-dates the current development plan policies and national design guidance and does not create a precedent. In any event, the proposed extension and the extension to No 108 would be significantly different in scale and appearance and would not have a balancing effect.
The appeal proposal has been assessed on its individual merits and only on the basis of the submitted scheme. Although no objections were raised by neighbouring occupiers, this does not affect my conclusions.
I conclude that the proposed development is contrary to Dudley Borough Development Strategy (2017) Policy L1 - Housing Development, extensions and alterations to existing dwellings; and Policy S6 - Urban Design Policy. It also conflicts with Policy ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (2011) and the guidance in the Council’s Planning Guidance Note 17 - [name] (PG17) which, of relevance to this appeal, requires such side extensions to be set back from the front elevation. It would also fail to comply with the objective of securing high-quality design set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above 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 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
- 3280712
- Application reference
- P21/0913
- 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
- 20 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
- 10 August 2021
- Valid date
- 25 August 2021
- Start date
- 27 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 26 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
- 9160
- 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