Appeal 6003494
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
described as ‘ground floor shops to remain as shops, first and second floor as 4 individual flats’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
Amended plans have been submitted with the appeal which show a dormer roof extension at the rear of the appeal properties. Such amended plans are materially different to those considered by the Council which included a front, as well as a rear, dormer roof extension.
The ‘Procedural Guide to Planning Appeals – England’ is clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and that it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the local planning authority. In consideration of the Procedural Guide and in the interests of fairness, I have not had regard to the amended plans and have determined the appeal based only on those that were before the Council when it made its
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed front dormer extension on the character and appearance of the host properties and the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
181 and [address] are two-storey properties sited between two taller buildings of a different appearance. The wider commercial area within which the appeal properties are located is characterised by two- and three-storey buildings of varying ages, design and form. The simple and traditional appearance of the appeal properties, including their pitched roof form, contributes positively to the character and appearance of this area.
The proposed front dormer would be wide with a flat roof that would sit just above eaves level and would extend almost to the ridge of the existing roof and across nearly the full roof width. The massing, design and position would dominate the roof slope and would be visually intrusive, obscuring the existing pitched roof and drawing attention away from the traditional features and proportions of the appeal property, which would harmfully undermine the positive contribution that they make to the character and appearance of the area.
For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the proposed front dormer extension would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host properties and the surrounding area. As such, the proposal would conflict with Policy JP-P1 of Places for Everyone, March 2024 which, amongst other things, requires development to acknowledge the character and identity of the locality.
Section 06
Conclusion
The proposed development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweighs the identified harm and associated development plan conflict.
I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
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 3473No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 6 May 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 April 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6003494
- Application reference
- FUL/355041/25
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000004
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Other minor developments
- Appeal type reason
- Not recorded
- Appeal reason
- refused
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- No Jurisdiction Associated
- Link status
- Not recorded
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- 0 hectares
- Floor space
- 104 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- 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
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- No
- 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
- 12 January 2026
- Valid date
- 12 January 2026
- Start date
- 19 January 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 20 November 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 6 May 2026
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- Not recorded
- Bespoke
- Not recorded
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- 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
- Back Office-s78
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 88348
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29