Appeal 3276290
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
4 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
part two-storey part single-storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of Nos 15, [address] and No. [address], with particular reference to privacy.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling in a modern high density residential development.
Currently there is mutual overlooking between neighbouring properties, particularly with Nos 15 and [address] and No. [address]. The overlooking is primarily between rear first floor windows and the rear of properties.
The proposal includes a first floor addition of some 3.2 metres in depth. From my observations, due to the closer proximity of first floor habitable room windows to the rear and side boundaries than existing windows, the proposal would create unacceptable overlooking of the rear garden area of No. [address] and would create an unacceptable sense of loss of privacy to occupiers of No. [address] and No. [address]. It would materially exacerbate the existing overlooking/privacy situation to a significant degree making the neighbouring rear gardens significantly less pleasant places to use.
In reaching my conclusion I have had regard to all matters raised. I note that there are covenants restricting additional development. This is not a planning consideration.
For the reasons stated above, I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the living conditions of neighbours. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to Policy DM29 in the Chelmsford Local Plan (2020), where it seeks to safeguard the living environment of residents.
Since the Council made its decision, the National Planning Policy Framework has been revised. I consider Policy DM29 to be broadly consistent with the Framework, especially where the Framework continues to seek to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
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 1172No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 8 November 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 2 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3276290
- Application reference
- 21/00236/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Chelmsford Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000070
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
- 65 m²
- 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
- 2 June 2021
- Valid date
- 2 June 2021
- Start date
- 3 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 8 April 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 8 November 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
- 5713
- 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