Appeal 3283578
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
8 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 and rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The Council have raised no objection to the rear extension; therefore I will not consider that aspect as part of my report.
Section 04
Application for costs
An application for costs was made by [name] against Birmingham City Council. This application will be the subject of a separate Decision.
Section 05
Background
A previous application for the same development was refused and dismissed at appeal (APP/P4605/D/20/3251724). There is also an extant permission approved for extensions to the property.
Section 06
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 07
Reasons
The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling in a primarily residential area. The appeal property is one of a number of similarly designed properties but has a previous side extension constructed.
I will not repeat the previous Inspectors assessment of the proposals, but the reason for resubmission of the scheme is that the appellant is aware of another scheme for similar development that has been approved by the Council at No. [address].
In support of this position, I have received copies of the proposed elevation plans for No 59 and the officer report. The appellant questions the inconsistency of decision making in this instance, in respect of the two schemes.
I have compared the two schemes, and they are not as identical as the appellant claims. The design of the approved scheme is simpler in nature, and in my opinion would cause less harm to the character and appearance of the locality.
In addition, since that scheme was approved, there has been a new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which has put far more emphasis on quality and design. Paragraphs 126, 130 and 132 of the Framework outline this approach to quality and design and are fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve.
With regard to this scheme, I have found no reason to differ from the reasoning and decision made by the Inspector in the previous appeal. I therefore repeat his reasoning in the paragraph below.
Therefore, I conclude the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the main dwelling house and the street-scene. It would conflict with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017 which requires new development to reinforce a positive sense of place and local distinctiveness. It would also conflict with saved Paragraphs 3.14C-D of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005 and the provisions of the ‘[name], [name] 2007 SPD which encourage development that is respectful to its surroundings and that home extensions that fit comfortably with the character of the area, as well as the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires that development adds to the quality of an area.
Section 08
Conclusion
For the above reasons, I dismiss the appeal.
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.
Costs Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 221No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 4 November 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 19 October 2021 (page 1)
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 221No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 4 November 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 19 October 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3283578
- Application reference
- 2021/05939/PA
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Birmingham City Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000025
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
- 15 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
- 23 September 2021
- Valid date
- 23 September 2021
- Start date
- 5 October 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 8 September 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 4 November 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
- Yes
- 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
- 5613
- 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