Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

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 works

One-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.

  1. 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]).

  2. 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.”

  3. 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.

  4. 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