Appeal 3276346
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
6 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 rear extension and replacement attached garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Application for costs
An application for costs was made by [name] against the decision of the East Suffolk Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties.
Section 05
Reasons
The site is within a residential area characterised predominantly by varying designs of detached properties. The appeal site is a detached bungalow which has an attached garage to the side.
The proposed extension would be a large addition to the property, however given the orientation of the existing property the proposed extension would not be obvious in the streetscene. Whilst a substantial extension, I noted during my site visit that a similar scale of property exists at No.[address].
Public views of the extension would be limited given the location to the rear of the existing bungalow. Whilst a trainline runs along the rear boundary of the garden offering views of the appeal site the proposed extension would not appear incongruous to the existing property.
The location of the garage serving No. 16 adjacent the boundary would screen to a degree the bulk of the proposed extension. I find that this combined with the proposed roof pitch and design of the extension would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 16.
No. 12 has a rear conservatory with windows facing onto the side of No. 14. Given the relationship between the properties the proposed development is of a scale and mass which would appear stark and overbearing to the occupiers of No. 12.
The appellant has provided shadow diagrams which demonstrates that shadows will extend over the glazed conservatory. Whilst the appellant has included shadows from development which could be built under permitted development rights, I given this limited weight as I have not been provided with substantive evidence of a development would could be built using these rights. I find that the proposed development would lead to loss of light to the neighbouring property.
I conclude that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupants of No. [address]. There is conflict with Policy WLP8.29 of the Local Plan which seeks amongst other things to protect the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties.
There is also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) which seeks to ensure developments maintain a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the above reasons I conclude that this 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 126No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 January 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 4 January 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3276346
- Application reference
- DC/21/1523/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- East Suffolk
- Planning authority code
- E07000244
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
- 89 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
- 3 June 2021
- Valid date
- 15 June 2021
- Start date
- 17 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 27 May 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 19 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
- Yes
- 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
- 9070
- 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