Appeal 3269988
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
for a single storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of the GPDO for a single storey rear extension at [site address] , [name], Romford, [postcode] in accordance with application, Ref 4393/20 made on the 28 December 2020, and the details submitted with it, pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part1, Class A, paragraph A.4(2).
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] in terms of its potential to impact on outlook, overshadow and result in an increased sense of enclosure.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property, [site address] , is a two-storey terraced house. While number 5 has a single storey side extension [address] remains un-extended. From the aerial photograph and the evidence provided I see that number 9 has, adjacent to the boundary, a garden door and window at ground floor level, serving a kitchen, with a first floor window over.
The appellant proposes, following the demolition of an existing conservatory, a full width single storey rear extension. It is would be 6.0 metres deep, with a mono-pitched roof the eaves height of which would be 2.7 metres. It would slope back towards the rear wall of the host property at which point the maximum hight would be 3.5 metres.
Given its limited height and the shallow pitch of the proposed roof the extension would only be a little higher than a typical close-boarded garden boundary fence for much of its length. Further, number 9 benefits from a long south facing garden.
Taking these factors into account, and based on the limited evidence to the contrary, I conclude that the proposal would not materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of number 9 in terms loss of outlook, overshadowing or a sense of enclosure.
I therefore conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed extension would not cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of number 9 as suggested by the Council.
Section 05
Conditions
Certain requirements of development as proposed here are already set out in the legislation and it is therefore unnecessary to repeat them in conditions; GPDO paragraph A.4 (11) (a) in particular specifies that the development must be carried out in accordance with the approved details (which in this case are principally shown on the drawings).
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval granted.
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 1184No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 7 October 2021Matches the official casework database
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3269988
- Application reference
- 4393/20
- 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
- 3. Refused prior approval of permitted development rights
- 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
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- Yes
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 1 March 2021
- Valid date
- 1 March 2021
- Start date
- 23 July 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 February 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 7 October 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
- 4365
- 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