Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

Appeal 3330899

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 works

One-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

demolition of detached garage. Installation of a side and rear single storey extension and a garden room.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. Section 03

    [name]

    The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook and privacy.

  3. Section 04

    Character and appearance

    The appeal property is a two-storey end-terraced dwelling located along [address].

    The surrounding area is residential and is characterised by the presence of similar brick-built, two storey terraced and semi-detached dwellings set back from the road behind front gardens and/or parking areas.

    The similarity in the materials and appearance of dwellings combines with the regularity of their spacing to contribute an attractive uniform quality to the character of the area.

    During my site visit, I observed the presence of hedgerows, trees and planting and noted that this, together with the spaces afforded by parking areas, lends the area a green and spacious quality.

    This sense of greenery and spaciousness is enhanced by glimpses through to considerable rear garden areas, with occasional and largely small-scale, ancillary buildings, mainly garden sheds and outbuildings.

    The wide grass verges to either side of the road contain street trees and together, the street trees, verges, gardens and occasional hedgerows combine to afford this relatively high-density urban area a notable sense of greenery and spaciousness.

    I also observed during my site visit that, due to a change in levels, the appeal property sits considerably higher than its neighbour, Number [address]. 10.The proposed development would extend the appeal property to the side and rear at single storey height and would add a large single storey garden room, which would largely fill the width of the plot. Both proposed additions would have footprints considerably greater than that of the existing dwelling. Taken together, I find that the proposed additions would be of such a scale as to visually overwhelm the appearance of the rear garden and unduly dominate an otherwise predominantly green and spacious area. 11.Further to the above, I find that the flat roof of the proposed extension would draw undue attention to itself as an incongruous feature, due in part to the overall scale of the extension, in part to the raised height of the appeal property in relation to the neighbouring dwelling, No 58 and also due to the general absence of such large, flat-roofed buildings in the surrounding area. 12.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would unduly dominate its surroundings and detract significantly from the uniform, green and spacious qualities of the area. 13.Given this, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; and to Local Plan1 Policies BE1 and BE2, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Living conditions 14.Whilst the proposed extension would extend the appeal property towards No 58, I find that its flat roof would prevent it being of such a height as to appear unduly overbearing when seen from this neighbouring dwelling. Furthermore, the proposed windows to the side of the extension would be obscured and set at a high level, such that they would neither result in overlooking nor result in a sense of overlooking. 15.Consequently, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in any significant harm in respect of outlook or privacy and in this regard, it would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; or to Local Plan Policies BE1 and BE2, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity. However, the absence of harm in this regard does not mitigate against the harm identified in respect of the proposal’s effect on local character and hence the conclusion below. 1 Reference: Telford and Wrekin Local Plan 2011-2031 (2018). 2

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 601No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    13 December 2023Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    1 December 2023 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3330899
Application reference
TWC/2023/0383
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Telford and Wrekin Council
Planning authority code
E06000020

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
7 October 2023
Valid date
20 October 2023
Start date
14 November 2023
Planning authority decision date
5 October 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
43563
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