Appeal 3330491
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
4 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 extension to front and rear elevation.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The proposal includes a front and rear extension. The council’s concern relates only to the front extension. This would increase the size of the existing porch which provides stepped access to the ground and first floors beyond. The proposed larger area would continue to provide access to the stairs but would reposition the front door to the side and create a larger area, depicted as a hall/study, to the front of the house. Although the council are concerned about the plans, the first floor plan clearly illustrates the accommodation to be provided which would be on a single level.
The houses in this row are of a uniform design with a cat-slide roof from the main roof down to the porch area. The ground floor is set at a lower level. The ground floor front windows are high level and obscure glazed. They therefore provide light rather than outlook. Given the orientation and the position of the dividing fence, the new structure would not alter the living conditions within the neighbouring house. The proposal would however significantly alter the appearance of the front of the dwelling and although it would be at a lower level than the road and screened to some extent by the front hedge, it would be clearly evident from the street.
The proposed changes would introduce a small gable that would hip into the cat-slide roof. There would also be a flat roofed element adjacent to the shared boundary. I appreciate that the existing porch area offers limited functionality www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision: APP/W4223/D/23/3330491 due to its size and configuration. I also acknowledge that the attached property has been extended to the front, although this follows the existing form of the house. I consider that the arrangement of the forward gable and its relationship with the cat-slide roof, would detract from the appearance of the property. The new element would be a prominent and discordant design feature that would be at odds with the designs of these houses. It would not sit comfortably within the frontage of the property and would represent poor design in this context.
Given the above, the proposal would be at odds with the design requirements of policies 9(a.iv) and 20 of the [name] and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2011. The front extension would also result in conflict with the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.
The proposal would bring benefits with regard to investment and improved accommodation within this property. [name] note the lack of concerns expressed locally and the potential support from the attached neighbour, I conclude that the matters in favour of the front extension are not sufficient to outweigh my concerns. I therefore dismiss the appeal.
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 341No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 13 December 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 November 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3330491
- Application reference
- HOU/351084/23
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 1 October 2023
- Valid date
- 1 October 2023
- Start date
- 8 November 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 August 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 13 December 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
- 43559
- 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