Appeal 3286567
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
first floor extension on top of existing.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure
The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the host and neighbouring properties, with particular regard to light and outlook.
Section 05
Reasons for the Recommendation
The host dwelling is a mid terrace property in a residential area, with an existing single storey extension to the rear. Other properties within the terrace have similar single storey extensions.
The existing single storey extensions to the rear of both the host dwelling and [address] creates a tunnelling effect limiting the outlook from, and amount of light available to the ground floor rooms on the rear elevation. However, the first floor windows are able to receive good levels of daylight and the outlook is not constrained.
Due to the depth and height of the proposal and its proximity to the joint boundary it would limit the amount of light to both the first floor rooms at the host property and no 29, making them less pleasant places to be particularly in the winter months. I noted that the first floor room of no 29 receives daylight for at least part of the day, which, the proposal would reduce due to its orientation and height making the room gloomy. It would also significantly intrude on the current open outlook from the first floor rear window, making the room that the window serves less pleasant to use.
On my visit I noted that there were examples of two storey outriggers in the local area. I do not have details of these before me, but they appear to be less deep that the proposal, so are not directly comparable. In addition, I am not aware of the circumstances that led to their approval including the relevant development plan policies in place at the time. In any event, I have determined this appeal on its own merits based on the site-specific circumstances of the case.
I conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of the host and neighbouring properties, with particular regard to light and outlook. It would conflict with Policy 9 of the Oldham Development Plan Document- Joint [name] and Development Management Policies (2011) which seeks to ensure, amongst other things that development does not cause significant harm to the amenity of occupants through impacts on access to daylight and other nuisances.
Section 06
Conclusion and Recommendation
The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, that outweigh this conflict. I therefore recommend that the appeal is dismissed.
Section 07
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis I agree 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 149No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 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
- 3286567
- Application reference
- HOU/346816/21
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000004
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
- 12 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
- 9 November 2021
- Valid date
- 9 November 2021
- Start date
- 26 November 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 October 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 27 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
- 9521
- 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