Appeal 3307189
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
single storey front extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a semi-detached dwelling in a staggered row of similarly styled properties on land that is on a sloping gradient. There is a general symmetry of properties within the street scene. No 23 stands notably forward of a neighbouring property, No 25. The property currently has a small single storey extension to the front of the dwelling.
The proposed single storey front extension would project forward of the main dwelling, the impact of which would be exaggerated by the extent of the setback of No 25. As a consequence it would create a prominent incongruous addition at odds with the symmetry of properties in the road. The proposed materials to match the existing dwelling would not mitigate the harm. Rather than adding to the architectural interest, as suggested by the appellant, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area.
The development would harm the character and appearance of the area and so consequently would conflict with the part of Policy ENV2 of the Black Country Core Strategy 2011 which requires all development to protect local distinctiveness and preserve and where appropriate enhance local character. It would also conflict with Policy S6 and Policy L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy 2017. Amongst other things, these policies support development where it is responsive to the context and character of the surrounding area and requires development to be of an appropriate form, siting, scale and mass.
Section 05
Other Matters
I note the personal circumstances of the appellant. I sympathise with this situation. The development would provide an adapted living space for the occupant to meet their needs. However, I have not been provided with any substantive evidence to demonstrate that the extension would provide the only option in terms of making adjustments to improve the living conditions within the home. The benefits of the proposal are outweighed by the harm that would arise from it.
The appellant refers to a 2 storey extension elsewhere on [address] in support of their case. However, the location within the road and stagger of properties is different and therefore not directly comparable to the case before me. In any event, each case is determined on its own merits and my assessment is based on the information submitted.
The appellant has also identified that the scheme would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring properties. Be that as it may, it does not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons identified, I conclude 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 3546No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 8 December 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 7 November 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3307189
- Application reference
- P22/1074
- 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
- 2 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
- 17 September 2022
- Valid date
- 17 September 2022
- Start date
- 20 October 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 September 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 8 December 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
- 24813
- 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