Appeal 3318601
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
7 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 rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure
The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the proposal is permitted development and if so whether prior approval should be granted having regard to the effect of the proposed rear extension on the amenity of adjoining properties.
Section 05
Reasons for the recommendation
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) gives ‘permitted development’ rights for various extensions to domestic properties subject to a prior approval process and various conditions. This means that certain extensions do not require planning permission.
The Council has drawn my attention to the conditions set out in A.4 of the GPDO, and in particular A.4(2)(c), which requires the developer to provide to the local planning authority the addresses of any adjoining properties. I note that the only property that was listed in the application form was the attached neighbouring property, and no details were submitted in relation to the other properties that adjoin the site.
The Council, rather than turning away the procedurally incorrect application under s327A of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as revised), proceeded to determine the application and conclude in a reason for refusal that the proposal did not meet the conditions set out in A.4 of the GPDO. Furthermore, and despite this omission, the Council went on to correctly notify all adjoining properties. [name].4(4) of the GPDO the Council was not required to do this as they had already opted to refuse the application under A.4(3) for failing to comply with the conditions.
It is the responsibility of the developer to provide details of the correct adjoining properties, as required by the condition set out at A.4(2)(c), to enable the proposal to be permitted development. In this instance, this procedural requirement was not met. Irrespective of whether the Council then went on to notify the correct properties, on the basis of the information that was submitted to the Council, the proposal cannot be considered to be permitted development as it does not meet the necessary conditions.
For this reason, there is no necessity to further consider any of the matters of prior approval relating to the amenity of adjoining properties.
Section 06
Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.
Section 07
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s recommendation and on that basis the appeal is 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 376No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 16 February 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 10 August 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3318601
- Application reference
- 23/0130
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000030
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
- 3. Refused prior approval of permitted development rights
- 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
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- 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
- 14 March 2023
- Valid date
- 14 March 2023
- Start date
- 26 June 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 10 March 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 16 February 2024
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
- 46687
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21