Appeal 3275142
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
construction of single storey rear extension and raised decking (amended description).
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Background and Main Issue
The Council granted planning permission for the erection of a single storey rear extension with a decking area. The decision is subject to a number of conditions, which notably require the high level window to the southern elevation of the addition to remain obscure glazed and privacy screens to be installed to the northern and southern sides of the decking.
The main issue is whether the conditions in dispute are necessary to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of nos 37 and [address], with particular regard to privacy.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a semi-detached property fronting [address], which is characterised by its steep northern incline. By reason of the changes in level in the area, no [address] (no 37) sits on lower grounds than the appeal property. The side boundary between the two properties is relatively low, and allows for some limited overlooking.
At the time of my site visit, the extension and decking area had been constructed. If it was fitted with clear glass, the high level window situated to the southern elevation of the extension would, due to its position, lead to a loss of privacy for the occupiers of no 37, which would be harmful to their enjoyment of their rear garden area. The extension is otherwise served by large windows, and light levels remain satisfactory despite the high level opening being obscure glazed.
A privacy screen has been constructed to the northern side of the decking area, which preserves the privacy of the occupiers of no [address]. Although overlooking of gardens is often unavoidable in suburban settings, the elevated position of the decking area would enable clear views into the garden of no 37 above the intervening boundary fence. In the absence of privacy screen to the southern side of the decking, the development would lead to harmful overlooking for the occupiers of this neighbouring property, and have a detrimental effect on their enjoyment of their private outdoor space. Whilst it is noted that there was no objection from these neighbouring residents, this is not determinative, given that I must consider the effect of the development on the living conditions of both existing and future occupiers.
For these reasons, the disputed conditions are considered necessary to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of nos 37 and 41, with particular regard to privacy. They are required to ensure that the appeal scheme fully complies with Policy PCS23 of the Portstmouth Plan – [name] which, amongst other things, requires new development to protect amenity and provide a good standard of living environment for neighbouring and local occupiers as well as future residents and users of the development.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons detailed 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 152No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 11 January 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 December 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3275142
- Application reference
- 20/00633/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Portsmouth City Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000044
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 4. Grant planning permission for the development subject to conditions to which you object
- Appeal reason
- Appeal Against Conditions
- Type detail
- Unknown
- 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
- 60 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
- 16 May 2021
- Valid date
- 16 May 2021
- Start date
- 24 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 April 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 11 January 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
- 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
- 8686
- 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