Appeal 3275618
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
demolition of existing rear extension and rebuild single storey rear extension to dwellinghouse.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook.
Section 04
Reasons
The two-storey terraced house at [site address] has an existing side and rear extension which projects from the two-storey outrigger up to the shared boundary with [address]. No 61’s existing extension is some 2.4m in height at the eaves, rising to 2.75m in height at the highest point of the roof. The existing extension’s side return is some 4.15m from No 61’s main rear wall. No 63 has a single-storey rear extension which also abuts the shared boundary with No 61, but does not continue along the side of the outrigger.
The proposed development would involve the demolition of the existing extension and its replacement with a flat-roofed rear and side extension of some 3m in height. The side return of the proposed extension would be some 4.05m from the main rear wall of No 61. The proposed development would therefore be some 0.6m higher at the shared boundary and 0.1m closer to the rear of the main houses at Nos 61 and 63 than the existing extension.
Policy DMP1 of the London Borough of Brent Local Plan: Development Management Policies 2016 (DMP) requires, amongst other things, that development provides high levels of internal and external amenity. The Council’s Residential Extensions and [name] 2 (2018) advises that extensions which infill the side return between a two-storey outrigger and the site’s boundary should be no higher than 2m in height at the boundary, rising to no more than 3m in height where the extension meets the main house.
Notwithstanding the presence of the existing extensions at Nos 61 and 63, the proposed development would be sited directly adjacent to the shared boundary with No 63. Its increased height coupled with its increased proximity to the main rear wall of No 61 and neighbouring No 63 would have a negative effect on the outlook for the neighbouring habitable room at the rear of No 63.
No 61’s existing extension was subject to a certificate of lawful development in 2001 and much of the proposed development would overlap the existing extension’s footprint. Furthermore, I acknowledge the existing extension’s poor thermal quality, its age, and its deterioration over time. However, these matters do not overcome my concerns regarding the proposed development.
In conclusion, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook. As such, it would conflict with DMP Policy DMP1 and the Council’s SPD 2 as set out above.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given 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 757No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 13 October 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 12 October 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3275618
- Application reference
- 21/0612
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Brent
- Planning authority code
- E09000005
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
- 16 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
- 24 May 2021
- Valid date
- 24 May 2021
- Start date
- 13 August 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 26 April 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 13 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
- 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
- 4608
- 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