Appeal 3273594
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
rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with reference to outlook and sunlight.
Section 04
Reasons
No [site address] is one of a pair of semi-detached houses. The property shares a single-storey rear outrigger with No 27. The proposal would involve the demolition of a small lean-to element and the erection of a single-storey extension. This would increase the length of the outrigger by 5.3 m.
The rear patio area of No 27, nearest to the house, is bounded to the north by an extension belonging to [address]. The extension is relatively long and it has taller eaves than is typical for a single-storey structure. This makes it prominent, and some might argue imposing, from the amenity space of No 27.
The proposed extension would feature a more conventional design, with a dual-pitch roof. The eaves would be approximately 2.5 m in height, measured to the plane of the roof, with a ridge level of 3.47 m. The height and depth of the extension would give it greater physical presence than the existing boundary fence. This would contribute to an increased sense of enclosure for the residents of No 27, who are already affected by the extension to No 29. Furthermore, although there is no technical evidence on this point, it is likely that the new extension would result in loss of sunlight to the neighbour’s patio.
I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], through its harmful impacts on the enjoyment of their amenity space. There would be conflict with Policy H14 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 insofar as it seeks to ensure that new development does not have an overbearing effect for occupants of existing homes and provides reasonable sunlight for those neighbours.
Section 05
Other Matters
The proposed extension would not impinge directly on any windows belonging to No 27. There is a back door adjacent to the boundary, but the case officer report states that this serves circulation space and not a habitable room. Accordingly, my conclusions relate solely to the impact of the proposal on the quality of outdoor amenity space.
The appellant draws comparisons with the extensions at 29 and [address]. I do not know the background to those developments, but their existence does not make the appeal scheme acceptable. I have considered the proposal on its own merits.
The Council states that the development would overhang the boundary and that the incorrect certificate of ownership has been served. However, since I am dismissing the appeal there is no need for me to consider this matter.
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 106No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 29 September 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 6 September 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3273594
- Application reference
- 20/02772/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Oxford City Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000178
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
- 27 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
- 22 April 2021
- Valid date
- 22 April 2021
- Start date
- 10 August 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 13 April 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 29 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
- 3963
- 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