Appeal 3293451
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
erection of a detached garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed detached garage on the living conditions of the neighbours at No.[address], with regard to outlook.
Section 04
Reasons
No. [site address] (No.17) is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located on the western side of [address]. The dwelling itself is offset from the common boundary with its non-attached neighbour at No.[address] (No.15) by around 3m and there are existing timber double gates providing access to the rear garden area.
The proposal is to construct a detached garage in the rear garden of No.17, accessed via the double gates. The Proposed New Garage drawing (ref. 1956.02-A3) shows the garage as offset from the common boundary with No.15 by only around 0.1m and extending a depth of around 9m. It would be sited at the back edge of the existing patio, at a slightly lower level than the lawned garden, and well behind the rear building line of both No.15 and No.17. It would nonetheless extend around half the length of the rear garden of No.15, very close to the boundary.
I note that the proposed garage has been designed with a pitched roof to minimise the height of the eaves on the common boundary. However, at a height of around 2.4m to its eaves, the upper part of the very long elevation of the proposed garage and its roof profile would be visible, and prominent, above the existing 1.[address] boarded timber boundary fence.
Despite its set back from the rear elevation, the combination of the height, excessive depth and proximity to the boundary would result in the garage appearing overbearing from the ground floor windows of No.15, and notably from much of the rear garden. I therefore find that the overbearing impact on outlook is such that the proposed garage would cause harm to the living conditions of the neighbours at No.15.
Consequently, the proposed garage conflicts with Policies L1 and S6 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy (2017) and Planning Guidance Note 17: [name] because it would not be appropriately designed and would cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, including harm arising from loss of outlook. It would further conflict with the guidance at paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework that new development should create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Policy ENV2 of the Black Country Core Strategy (2011) relates to historic character and local distinctiveness, rather than living conditions. I do not therefore find it determinative in this case.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, the appeal is 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 114No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 5 May 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 13 April 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3293451
- Application reference
- P21/2254
- 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 21 February 2022
- Valid date
- 21 February 2022
- Start date
- 7 March 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 8 February 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 5 May 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
- 14741
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21