Appeal 3359125
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
a 2 storey front extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on living conditions at the next door property [address], in terms of natural light and outlook.
Section 04
Reasons
14 and [address] are both 2 storey detached houses, sitting side by side within a residential area. The proposal is to build an extension across the front of No 14, with a new 2 storey section sitting up to the shared side boundary with No 16.
No 16 has a home office on that side, with a glazed door/window combination facing directly towards No 14. This was apparently formed by sub-dividing the space from the kitchen. I consider the home office to be a habitable room which would often be occupied, including during daytimes, as part of the normal residential use of the house.
The office door/window combination at No 16 faces north, so that it receives very little direct sunlight. The proposal would thus cause little overshadowing, even though it would sit very close to and directly opposite the home office. The proposed new 2 storey wall would, however, severely reduce the amount of general daylight (light from the sky) reaching the office, making it much darker throughout the day. The high brick wall would furthermore be an extremely dominant and imposing feature in the outlook from that door/window, to an extent that would be severely overbearing.
The Council refers to a 45 degree guideline for assessing issues like this, but I have not been provided with a copy of any such policy or guidance. The appellant disputes its relevance for side-facing windows. Whether or not a 45 degree guideline is applicable, the proposed extension would clearly make the home office a much less pleasant room.
I conclude that the proposal would unduly harm living conditions at No 16 next door, due to loss of light and outlook. It therefore conflicts with the aim of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Revised [name], to ensure that development avoids undue impact on neighbouring properties. This is in line with the aim of Black Country Core Strategy policy ENV3 and Site Allocations and Delivery Development Plan Document policy SAD EOS9 to achieve high quality design and with the National Planning Policy Framework’s aim to create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
The appellant also refers to a recent appeal decision allowing a 2 storey extension at No 161. The Inspector for that appeal observed that the extension would be on the southern side of the plot, adjacent to an area of open space, so that there would be no impact on any neighbouring properties. The circumstances in that case were therefore significantly different. I have assessed this case on its own merits.
For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.
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 890No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 31 March 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 12 March 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3359125
- Application reference
- DC/24/69947
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000028
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
- 55 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- 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
- 17 January 2025
- Valid date
- 17 January 2025
- Start date
- 29 January 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 16 December 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 31 March 2025
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
- 67212
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21