Appeal 3275969
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
7 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
described as ‘[name] + [name].
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] (No 5), with particular regard to outlook.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal relates to one of 6 two-storey detached dwellings forming a small cul-de-sac fronting onto an area of open space. The property has an adjoining garage and existing single storey projection to the rear of the garage and to the northern side elevation of the dwelling. The properties follow the geometry of the road with a staggered layout.
Section 05
Living conditions
I have some sympathy for the appellant, in that their proposed extension could potentially be acceptable in a street with a uniform linear alignment. Therefore, I have carefully considered their representations and in particular Appendix 7 of their statement that sets out the inter-relationships between the properties in [address].
Based on the evidence before me and my on-site observations I consider that the proposal would significantly increase the projection at first floor level beyond the rear elevation of the neighbouring property No 5. The effect of this is magnified by the existing staggered layout of the properties in [address]. The increase in height by way of the first floor side extension and two-storey rear extension combined with the close proximity to the shared boundary would mean that the rear garden of No 5 would be visually dominated and enclosed by the proposal. Accordingly, the projection, length and height of the gable wall of the proposed development would appear unduly overbearing and oppressive. Therefore, the proposal would materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] of loss of outlook.
Having reached the conclusions above the proposal would conflict with Policy SD1 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 1 and Policy H27 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 2 which seek amongst other things to ensure that that extensions to dwellings will not be unduly detrimental to the living conditions of adjoining properties. In reaching my conclusions I have also taken into account the [name] - Design Supplementary Planning Document (November 2017).
Section 06
Other matters
The appellant has drawn attention to the existing first floor side extension at No [address], however, I have limited information about its history, but due to its more modest scale at first floor its context differs to that of the scheme before me, and so it does not lead me to a different view in this case.
With regard to overlooking and privacy, I accept that the proposed positioning of windows would not materially increase a sense of overlooking for the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings when compared to the existing situation.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the above reasons, and having carefully considered all other matters raised, 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 794No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 24 September 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 23 August 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3275969
- Application reference
- DMPA/2020/0910
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- South Derbyshire District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000039
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
- 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
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 1
- 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 May 2021
- Valid date
- 27 May 2021
- Start date
- 11 August 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 8 March 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 24 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
- 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
- 3724
- 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