Appeal 3338860
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
a first-floor rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a first-floor rear extension at [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2023/08596/PA, dated 17 December 2023, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: (1) The development herby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. (2) The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the following approved plans: location plan, proposed block plan and drawing GA/01/29 rear first floor bathroom extension. (3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those in the existing building. (4) The proposed rear window of the first-floor rear extension hereby permitted shall be fitted with a top-opener and obscure glazing. (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed on the rear elevation.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and street scene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal building is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located in a residential area. It has been the subject of several previous extensions. The proposed extension is relatively small and would allow a bathroom of limited size to be improved. The Council considers that the proposal would have no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours subject to conditions. I see no reason to disagree having regard to the relative orientation of the neighbouring properties.
The proposed extension would not be seen from [address] and being at the rear of the dwelling would have no adverse impact on the street scene. Although the proposed flat roof would be out of character with the hipped roof form of the dwelling and others in [address] there is already a flat roof dormer at the rear elevation. A flat roof would ensure that the proposed extension would have a small visual impact and would not be significantly harmful or unduly dominant when viewed from neighbouring properties. The dwellings at [address] with windows which directly face the rear elevation of the appeal building would have a significant separation distance from the extension because of the intervening rear gardens. Whist the appeal building has been the subject of other extensions I consider that the extension proposed would not excessively unbalance the appearance of the pair of semi-detached dwellings of which it is part or constitute an over-development cumulatively because of its relatively small scale.
I find that the proposal would not conflict with Birmingham Development Plan policy PG3 which seeks to ensure that all new development demonstrates high design quality and contributes to a strong sense of place. It would comply with the [name] as the extension would not negatively impact on the appearance of a property and surrounding area. It would also comply with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework regarding good design.
Section 05
Conditions
In addition to the standard condition regarding the timescale for the development, a condition is added to confirm the approved plans. Matching external materials are required to protect the character and appearance of the building. Conditions are imposed to ensure that there is no opportunity for overlooking of neighbouring gardens from the proposed rear window. Permitted development rights are also restricted to prevent the insertion of any other windows.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed.
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 108No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 April 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3338860
- Application reference
- 2023/08596/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
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 15 February 2024
- Valid date
- 15 February 2024
- Start date
- 1 March 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 February 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 15 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
- 51125
- 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