Appeal 3264804
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
Variation of Condition 1 ([name]) of previously approved application 10/02895/HOUSE: Retrospective - Velux rooflights to the east and west elevations (To comply with condition 3 of approved permission 09/02148/HOUSE) without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 10/02895/HOUSE, dated 10 February 2011.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to overlooking.
Section 04
Reasons
The rooflight to which the appeal refers is located within the side-facing roof plane of the property. This faces the side elevation of the neighbouring property, [address], on which is a window serving a bathroom.
While noting the separation distance between the rooflight and the bathroom window, in the region of 19 metres, I was particularly conscious at the time of my site visit that whilst looking out of the opened rooflight, I was able to see the movements of the neighbouring occupiers when opening their bathroom window. This indicates that it would also be possible to see occupiers when they are further into the room, away from the window. Most concerning in this respect was the location of the bathroom facilities for [address], which are located within the line-of-sight of the rooflight. The lack of any obscured glazing to the window serving this bathroom would likely allow views, albeit at a distance, into the room. This would particularly be so during darkness hours, when the interior of the bathroom is likely to be illuminated.
Furthermore, in light of the personal activities undertaken within a bathroom, even the perceived overlooking of the space at a distance, would also have a significant effect, by making the occupiers unfairly conscious of the potential for views to exist between the properties.
In my view, this would have an unacceptable deleterious effect on the living conditions enjoyed by the occupiers of [address], by way of overlooking. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy CS14 of the [name], insofar as it seeks to ensure that development makes a positive contribution to quality of life. The scheme would also conflict with the living condition protection aims of the National Planning Policy Framework, as well as the [name] – [name], Supplementary Planning Document, Part 2 – Residential Development and the [name] – House Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance.
Section 05
Other Matters
I appreciate that the rooflight allows for additional ventilation of the bedroom, however this room was also served by a further window on a different elevation which could meet the occupiers needs in this respect. I am also conscious that various standard separation distances have been cited, nonetheless in this instance I have found that the separation distance would be insufficient to preclude a harmful impact.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I 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 192No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 30 July 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 29 June 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3264804
- Application reference
- 20/01924/HOUSE
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- West Berkshire District Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000037
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
- 2. Refused permission to vary or remove a condition(s)
- Appeal reason
- Appeal Against Conditions
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Other
- 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
- 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
- 9 December 2020
- Valid date
- 9 December 2020
- Start date
- 13 January 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 November 2020
- Appeal decision date
- 30 July 2021
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
- 1271
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21