Appeal 3307918
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
an increase in roof height to facilitate loft conversion with front and rear dormer.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an increase in roof height to facilitate loft conversion with front and rear dormer at [site address] , Pedmore, Dudley, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref P22/0826, dated 7 June 2022 and in accordance with the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision;
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;
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: 29BR/002-2022 ([name]; [name]; [name]).
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The description of the proposed development is taken from the Council’s decision notice, which is more detailed than the description on the application form, which refers to a “first floor extension.”
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a detached dormer bungalow situated inside a prominent bend along [address]. The dwelling has a single-storey, flat-roofed side extension, dog-legged to the host property such that it projects diagonally away from it in a manner that “turns the bend.”
The appeal property is located in a residential area characterised by the presence of a range of detached and semi-detached dormer bungalows and two storey dwellings. Dwellings are set back from the pavement behind front gardens and/or parking areas and grass verges separate the pavement from the road. Dwellings have gardens to the rear and combined with the front gardens, grass verges and gaps between dwellings and pairs of dwellings, this provides for a pleasant green and spacious setting.
Further to the above, whilst I observed during my site visit that many dwellings in the area have been altered and/or extended, these changes generally appear in keeping with host properties and their surroundings. Consequently, many original features appear to have been retained or enhanced, affording the area a distinctive and attractive sense of uniformity.
The proposed development would replace the existing flat roof of the single storey side extension with a dormer extension. Currently, the flat-roofed extension appears at odds with the dormer roof of the host dwelling and out of keeping with its surroundings, where no such addition exists.
The proposal would introduce a dormer roof, carefully designed to match the host dwelling and to appear in keeping with neighbouring dwellings. This would be to the benefit of the appearance of the host property and to the character of the surrounding area.
Whilst the proposal would be relatively large, it would not appear unduly dominant, due partly to the spacious setting of the host property and particularly, to the “dog-legged” siting of the extension, whereby the proposal would appear to turn the bend along [address] in a neat and satisfactory manner. 10.Further to the above, the heightened eaves of the proposal’s rear elevation would result in it wrapping around part of the appeal property’s rear garden in a sensitive manner, such that the addition would add visual interest in a way that ties-in well with and appears subservient to, the host dwelling. 11.Taking all of the above into account, I consider that the proposal would make a positive contribution to local character. 12.The proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, to Core Strategy1 Policy ENV2; to Development Strategy2 Policies L1 and S6; or to the [address] Extensions SPG3, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. 1 Reference: Black Country Core Strategy (2011). 2 Reference: Dudley Borough Development Strategy (2017). 3 Reference: Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 17 ([name]) (1998). 2
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 601No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 3 March 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 7 February 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3307918
- Application reference
- P22/0826
- 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
- Unknown
- 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
- 50 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 29 September 2022
- Valid date
- 29 September 2022
- Start date
- 17 January 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 5 September 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 3 March 2023
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
- No
- 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
- 29223
- 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