Appeal 3322533
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
already in place. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on the basis of its retention.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The development the subject of this appeal is already in place. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on the basis of its retention.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The properties along this part of [address] are arranged in semi-detached pairs, which are set back an equal distance from the tree-lined highway behind front gardens and forecourts. Their front faces are mainly finished in red brickwork, and they display prominent two storey bay windows, along with other architectural detailing typical of their era. Notwithstanding that some of the properties have been extended or altered, these consistent characteristics give the area a significant sense of cohesion and distinctiveness.
The host forms one half of a typical semi-detached pair, but with an existing two storey side extension. Its porch extension sits centrally on the property’s front face, and its roof is set well down from the principal roofline, and aligns with the vertically hung tiles on the adjacent bay windows.
However, whilst the porch extension is largely open to the front and sides, its roof, including the front facing gable, is substantial in scale. It projects well forward of the host, including its characteristic bay windows. Consequently, it is a prominent and dominant feature in the streetscene, which markedly interrupts the consistent set back of the buildings’ front faces when looking along the row.
There are a few other single storey front extensions in this part of [address]. As illustrated at paragraph 2.6 of the appellant’s statement, some of those are wider than this scheme. However, those examples either do not breach the established building line to the same degree as this scheme, or their style, with a simple monopitch roof, does not appear as discordant, or draw-the-eye to the same degree as here.
Whilst the scheme’s black-painted pillars integrate with the colour of the host’s windows and rainwater goods, and its roof matches the colour of the main roof, given its scale, siting and design, it jars with the host property, and with other buildings in this streetscene. It has therefore harmed the character and appearance of the host property and the area.
As a result, the development conflicts with Policies 9 and 20 of the [name] and Development Management Policies DPD (2011). Amongst other things, and in general terms, these require high quality design, which reflects the character and distinctiveness of local areas, and does not have an adverse impact on visual amenity.
The scheme conflicts with the development plan and, having regard to all other matters raised, including representations by interested parties, the appeal is therefore 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 450No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 2 August 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 July 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3322533
- Application reference
- HOU/350740/23
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000004
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- Yes
- 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
- 21 May 2023
- Valid date
- 21 May 2023
- Start date
- 28 June 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 May 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 2 August 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
- 36551
- 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