Appeal 3269167
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
a single storey rear extension. First floor rear extension. Alterations to fenestrations. Raised patio with steps down to garden.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
A previous application1 for a single storey rear extension, first floor rear extension and alterations to fenestration was refused.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a two storey end of terrace dwelling that has been extended to the rear.
The appeal property is located in a residential area, largely characterised by the presence of two storey terraced dwellings. Dwellings are set back from the road behind short gardens and/or parking areas. To the rear, the appeal property, like neighbouring dwellings along the same side of [address], steps down to a longer garden, which is set at a lower level than the house.
During my site visit, I observed that whilst the set-back and similar bay-fronted design of dwellings provides for an attractive sense of uniformity, many dwellings along [address] have been altered and/or extended, including changes to the sides, the roofs and most notably, to the rear of dwellings. 1 Reference: 3263/20. Generally, such changes tend to appear in keeping with host properties and to take the amenity of neighbours into account.
The proposed development would extend to the rear adjacent to the shared boundary with Number [address]. During my site visit, I observed that the patio doors opening onto a small patio-style area provide for an important outlook from the rear of No 95. I also observed that, along with a kitchen window, the patio doors provide the main rear outlook from the ground floor of No 95.
The height, projection and immediate proximity of the proposed development would result in it dominating the outlook from No 95’s patio doors. These characteristics would, I find, result in the proposal appearing to “loom over” the small neighbouring patio area, leading to an undue sense of enclosure.
In addition to the above, the proposed development would project beyond the area where the garden of No 95 falls away to a lower level and I consider that its overall scale and immediate proximity would combine to it appearing as an overly dominant feature when seen from that part of No 95’s rear garden closest to the house. 10.In support of his case, the appellant states that the proposal would not result in a significant extension adjacent to the boundary with No 95. However, for the reasons set out above, I have found that the proposal would result in a significant adverse impact. The proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address] with regards to outlook, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Local Plan2 policies LP26 and LP30, which together amongst other things, protect residential amenity.
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
- 17 September 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 August 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3269167
- Application reference
- 3995/20
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Redbridge
- Planning authority code
- E09000026
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
- 38 m²
- 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
- 17 February 2021
- Valid date
- 17 February 2021
- Start date
- 23 April 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 January 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 17 September 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
- 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
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 3363
- 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