Appeal 3295415
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 single storey front extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and permission is granted for a single storey front extension at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2021/09967/PA, dated 22 November 2021, subject to the attached schedule of conditions.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene.
Section 04
Reasons
The proposal is for a modest single storey extension to the front elevation of No 141, a detached house at the end of [address], a modern estate of detached and semi-detached properties. The extension would square off the front of the house, bringing the living room forward by about 1.5 m to sit alongside the projecting porch and integral garage. These were part of an earlier part-two/part-single storey extension to the property.
Whilst the proposal would result in a full width single storey extension across the front of the property and there are no other examples in the vicinity, the house is set well back from the road behind a grass verge next to a projecting garage attached to the adjacent semi-detached house. In this context the proposal would not appear intrusive or out of place and as a detached property no discordant lack of symmetry would arise. In fact the front elevation of the house would appear a more unified design.
One common design characteristic of the estate is the series of distinctive four panel front bay windows to the ground floor living rooms. In this setting the proposal would include an incongruous three panel bay window but the details of the window could be reconsidered by attaching a suitable condition.
For these reasons the proposal would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the street scene and would comply with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017 and Policy DM2 of the Development Management in [name] 2021. These require new development to demonstrate high design quality, reinforcing a sense of place, and to be appropriate to its location. The proposal would also comply with the [name] 2007 by improving the appearance of the house.
The Council suggested three conditions should the appeal be allowed. In addition to the standard time limit for commencement, conditions are required to define the approved plans in the interests of certainty and to control the external materials to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development. A further condition is required to control the details of the front bay window for the reasons given above.
Section 05
Conclusion
Having regard to the above the appeal should be allowed.
Section 06
Schedule of conditions
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Existing Site & Block Plan ED21-066-EB [name] & Block Plan ED21-066-PB [name] ED21-066-02 [name] ED21-066-03 [name] ED21-066-02 [name] ED21-066-04 [name]
Notwithstanding the approved plans, the design and construction details of the bay window shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to its installation. The bay window shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
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 1064No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 24 May 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 18 May 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3295415
- Application reference
- 2021/09967/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
- 5 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 23 March 2022
- Valid date
- 23 March 2022
- Start date
- 8 April 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 January 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 24 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
- 15657
- 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