Appeal 3360297
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
fenestration replacement.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for fenestration replacement at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2024/03940/PA, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Moseley Conservation Area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property comprises a detached two-storey 20th Century white-rendered dwelling with decorative brick dressings. It is located in a largely residential area close to [name].
The dwelling is set well back from the road behind a hedgerow and front garden/parking area and has a long garden to the rear. It is located within the Moseley Conservation Area, characterised by the presence of a range of attractive period dwellings set within green and spacious surroundings.
Dwellings along [address], within Moseley Conservation Area, demonstrate a variety of styles, and include Arts and Crafts, revivalist and early 20th Century dwelling types. This together with the generous spacing of dwellings within comfortable garden plots, provides for an attractive street-scene with a strong sense of the area’s rich built heritage.
During my site visit, I observed that whilst much of the original architectural integrity of dwellings along [address] remains intact, there have been a number of changes and alterations over the years. This includes changes to fenestration and I note that in this regard, the appellant has provided details including examples of the replacement of original windows with heritage-type modern windows.
In general, the setting back of dwellings from the road means that such minor changes do not detract from the positive contribution that the dwellings make to the significance of Moseley Conservation Area.
I noted during my site visit that the appeal dwelling has been impacted by subsidence and in this regard, I am mindful of the detailed evidence before me demonstrating how this has resulted in the warping of the windows that it is proposed to replace, which themselves are not the dwelling’s original windows.
The proposed replacement windows would comprise timber-replica windows. Whilst they would be uPVC rather than timber, the difference in appearance would, due to the replica design of the replacement windows and the considerable setting back of the dwelling from the road, have no discernible impact on the character and appearance of Moseley Conservation Area. Observed from a distance, the proposed replica windows would appear in keeping with the historical appearance of the host dwelling.
The overall appearance of the appeal dwelling would be little changed whilst the functionality of the windows would be improved.
Further, I am particularly mindful that there are examples of windows along [address] have already been replaced with windows that are little different to those proposed by the application the subject of this appeal whilst maintaining the integrity of the Moseley Conservation Area.
Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the Moseley Conservation Area. The proposal would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; or to Policies PG3 and TP12 of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, the appeal is successful.
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 July 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 July 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3360297
- Application reference
- 2024/03940/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
- 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
- 1
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Yes
- 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
- 7 February 2025
- Valid date
- 27 February 2025
- Start date
- 2 April 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 5 December 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 16 July 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
- 73050
- 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