Appeal 3326768
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
6 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
the erection of a two-storey side extension with associated internal and external alterations.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
[address] is characterised by a variety of dwelling types, with a mixture of hipped and gable roof designs. The appeal property retains the original hipped roof design, and the adjoining semi-detached house includes an extension with a hipped roof. [name] recognise that the neighbour’s extension is not set down, the roof form of that structure respects the original design of this pair of semi-detached houses.
The proposed extension would introduce a gable end roof design to the host property which would fail to respond to this hipped roof context. I recognise that the extension would be set down from the main ridge height and set back from the principal elevation. However, the gable roof design would still give rise to a bulky structure which would not appear subservient to the existing dwelling. It would imbalance the pair of semi-detached homes and would appear overly dominant.
In view of the above, the proposed extension would unduly harm the character and appearance of the host property and area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2031 (2017), [name] 2022, Policy DM2 of the Development Management in [name] 2021 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Section 05
Other Matters
In reaching my decision I have considered all matters raised by the appellant in support of the proposal. I recognise that the scheme proposes to retain the catslide roof feature, which has been lost on the adjoining property. Also, the proposals would retain a separation from the shared boundary with No [address] to prevent terracing. I note that the gable roof design would secure a better standard, and a greater level, of internal space than a hipped roof design, which would be an efficient use of land. However, none of these matters outweigh the harm I have described.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given, 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 301No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 September 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 4 September 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3326768
- Application reference
- 2023/03628/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
- 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
- 27 July 2023
- Valid date
- 27 July 2023
- Start date
- 15 August 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 24 July 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 19 September 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
- 38973
- 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