Appeal 3273889
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
[name], first floor rear extension and first floor side 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 for the occupants of No [address], having particular regard to outlook.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a large, detached dwelling that is located close to its side boundaries. The building is set back from the road and follows a different alignment to the adjacent terrace of houses which front on to Theydon Park Road. As a consequence, the building is demonstrably set back beyond its adjacent neighbour, No [address].
No 1 benefits from private amenity space to the rear of the property. However, it is somewhat limited in size, and due to the alignment of the appeal building, the garden is triangular in form with the side boundary tapering away from the dwelling. Due to the location of the appeal building and its proximity to the shared side boundary, its height and overall mass represents an imposing building when viewed from within the neighbouring garden. The flank elevation is tall and long and dominates much of the shared side boundary.
The proposal would have the effect of increasing the eaves height of the adjacent side elevation. As a consequence, when viewed from the adjacent garden, the bulk and mass of the building would demonstrably increase. This would increase the dominance of the appeal building. The side elevation would become more imposing and overbearing which would have a substantially harmful impact on outlook. The proposal would therefore represent an oppressive form of development that would unduly enclose the garden of No 1.
I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of No 1. Accordingly, it would fail to comply with Policies DBE2, DBE9 and DBE10 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan (1998), and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan [name] (2017). Taken together, these seek amongst other things, development which does not have a detrimental effect upon existing neighbouring properties.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons identified above, 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 731No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 24 February 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 25 January 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3273889
- Application reference
- PL/EPF/0111/21
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Epping Forest District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000072
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
- 58 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
- 27 April 2021
- Valid date
- 27 April 2021
- Start date
- 30 June 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 March 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 24 February 2022
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
- 11131
- 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