Appeal 3338164
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
extensions to front side and rear together with roof alterations.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
The appeal property benefits from a recent planning permission for a front, side and rear extension and loft conversion1.
In its description of the proposed development, the Council’s decision notice refers to “resubmission of approved planning application 22/10389/FUL.”
The proposal the subject of this appeal differs from this recent permission in that it proposes to replace the permitted hipped roof with a larger gable roof; and it seeks to introduce a new projecting porch, extending to ridge height, to the front of the dwelling.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Tettenhall Greens Conservation Area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling with an attached double garage which projects to the front. There is a long driveway and small garden area to the front and a longer garden to the rear.
The appeal property is located within the Tettenhall Greens Conservation Area, characterised by the presence of impressive Georgian and Victorian properties, 1 Reference: 22/01389/FUL. houses set within comfortable gardens, traditional stone walls and boundaries, mature trees and green open spaces. [address] in this location is noticeable for its mature trees and well-spaced dwellings within comfortable garden plots behind low and medium height boundary walls.
Further to the above, I noted during my site visit that, whilst many dwellings have been altered and or extended, such changes tend to appear in keeping with host dwellings and their neighbours. This provides for a notable sense of uniformity, whereby the appeal dwelling and its neighbours to the south west share numerous features, including being set well-back from the road, having roofs of a similar height and similarities in scale and design.
The proposed development would greatly extend the size of the existing roof, such that it would stretch across almost the full width of the property and would project significantly to the front and rear. The gable design and full height front projection would result in an extremely large and bulky addition at roof level. 10.I find that the above would result in a form of development that would overwhelm and fail to appear subservient to the host dwelling. It would result in the dwelling appearing unduly bulky and top-heavy. 11.Further to the above, the proposed double-height front porch, with its significant projection, large gable and extensive glazing at roof level, would draw attention to itself as a prominent and unduly dominant feature. It would combine with the roof to overwhelm and fail to appear subservient to, the appearance of the host dwelling. 12.The harm arising from the above would be exacerbated as a result of the development as a whole appearing in stark contrast to and out of keeping with, the appearance of neighbouring dwellings. 13.As a result of the above, the proposal would draw undue attention to itself as an incongruous and unsympathetic form of development that would appear to the detriment of the Tettenhall Greens Conservation Area’s qualities. 14.Consequently, the proposed development would fail to conserve the appearance of the Tettenhall Greens Conservation Area. Having regard to paragraph 208 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and to Planning Practice Guidance, I consider that the harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be less than substantial. This needs to be balanced against any public benefits the development may bring. 15.There is nothing before me to demonstrate that there are any benefits that would amount to such public benefits that they would outweigh the harm identified. 16.Taking all of the above into account, the proposal would fail to conserve the character and appearance of the Tettenhall Greens Conservation Area contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Woverhampton Unitary Development Plan (2006) Policies D6, D8, D9 and HE1, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. 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
- 16 May 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 26 April 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3338164
- Application reference
- 23/01009/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Wolverhampton City Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000031
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
- 5 February 2024
- Valid date
- 5 February 2024
- Start date
- 27 February 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 December 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 16 May 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
- 51214
- 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