Appeal 3308791
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 single rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a detached dwelling with a detached garage. It occupies a relatively small plot in a modern residential area, characterised by properties positioned close to the road with small private gardens and limited spaces between buildings. Thus, the area has a modern and compact residential character and appearance.
I have noted the size and scale of extensions which can amount to permitted development under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended. However, the proposal before me is not permitted development.
I acknowledge the Council say the scheme would comply with the 45-degree code and that it would not harm the living conditions of the Occupiers of No [address] with particular regard to outlook. I accept the proposed extension would be set back from the [address] footway with views of it interrupted by boundary treatments and other buildings. I also note the proposed extension would be of a simple form and finish which would match the existing dwelling.
However, the Birmingham Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2022) (SPD) states that an extension must be of a form and design that complements the host building and does not over-dominate or substantially alter its overall appearance, scale, or mass. The proposed extension would join the side elevation of the appeal dwelling to its detached garage. It would therefore result in built form along the full length of the appeal properties boundary which would be visible above the boundary fence from [address].
The proposed extension would also occupy a significant proportion of the already small private outdoor space. When viewed alongside the garage to which the proposal would adjoin the proposed extension would give the appeal dwelling a disproportionate elongated and cramped appearance having the effect of exacerbating the areas already compact character. Therefore, it would not complement the appearance of the host dwelling and instead would be an incongruous feature of the [address] street scene which would harm the character and appearance of the area.
For these reasons the proposed development would fail to accord with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017) and Policy DM2 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document (2021) which taken together, seek to achieve good design and safeguard the character and appearance of an area. For the same reasons it would also be in conflict with the SPD.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, having had regard to all other matters raised, on balance the proposal would fail to accord with the development plan. I therefore 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 232No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 7 February 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 27 January 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3308791
- Application reference
- 2022/05924/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
- 27 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
- 11 October 2022
- Valid date
- 11 October 2022
- Start date
- 11 November 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 November 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 7 February 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
- 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
- 27765
- 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