Appeal 3285345
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
a two storey side and rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is located in a predominantly residential area characterised by similarly designed pairs of semi-detached dwellings that have a reasonably symmetrical form and pleasant visual balance. Dwellings are set back from the highway with garden and/or parking areas to the front. The materials used in the area are fairly consistent and the layout and style of the properties along the road provides a consistent rhythm to the street scene.
I note that the width of the extension has been reduced following the Council’s refusal of a previous scheme. Whilst the front part of the extension would be 3.8m wide, the rear part would nevertheless project 5m from the existing side elevation. Therefore, when viewed from [address], the extension would appear 5m wide, albeit with a step in it.
The proposed development would substantially extend the host dwelling to the side, thereby disrupting the marked balance and rhythm described above in terms of the host dwelling and the surrounding pattern of development. Although it would be set down from the ridge and set back from the front elevation, its height and width combined with the open aspect of the site frontage, would create a visually prominent and dominant addition. As such, the proposed development would be readily apparent from the public domain such that it would have a significantly detrimental effect on the street scene.
Consequently, I find the development would be in conflict with the relevant elements of Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017), saved paragraphs 3.14C and 3.14D of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005) and the guidance contained within the Birmingham City Council Extending Your Home Supplementary Planning Document (2007) and Places for Living Supplementary Planning Guidance (2001) which seek, amongst other things, to ensure that all new development responds to site conditions and the local area context. The appeal scheme would also be contrary to paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework that seeks good design sympathetic to local character.
Section 05
Other Matters
My attention was drawn to a previous application at the site and other properties in the locality where similar extensions have been permitted. However, I do not have full details of the previous application or details that led to these other proposals being accepted. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the above reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach of the Framework and all other relevant consideration, 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 568No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 January 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 5 January 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3285345
- Application reference
- 2021/07297/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
- 75 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- 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
- 21 October 2021
- Valid date
- 21 October 2021
- Start date
- 17 November 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 13 October 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 19 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
- 9118
- 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