Appeal 3276816
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
single storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider that the main issue is the effect of the extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent property, No [address].
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a semi-detached house and each half is designed with an original rear projection on the outer sides of the pair. The proposed extension would add onto this projection and also add onto the main wall of the house, adjacent to No 55. The L shaped extension would run across almost the full width of the house. The orientation of the houses is such that they benefit from full sun on their rear elevations and outdoor amenity space.
Local Plan1 Policy Local Plan Policy DH(b) seeks to protect the amenity of adjacent occupiers and the [name] for residential extensions 2 adds further advice. The SPD indicates that extensions should not normally project by more than 3.6 metres and the appellant clarifies that the proposed extension would meet this criterion.
Whilst the extension would satisfy the SPD in this respect, it clearly would have an adverse effect on No 55. In particular, the orientation of the properties would mean that the proposed extension would result in the loss of sunlight and daylight to No 55. Furthermore, the extension would have the effect of enclosing the rear amenity area to No 55, caused in part by the proposed 1 Royal Borough of Greenwich - Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name], Adopted 30 July 2014. 2 Royal Borough of Greenwich - Royal Borough of Greenwich Supplementary Planning Document Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Guidance, December 2018 (SPD). extension and also by No 55’s own rear, original projection. In this respect the proposal would conflict with the SPD.
I have considered all matters raised but none alter my conclusion. I conclude that the proposed extension would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent property, No [address]. It would conflict with Local Plan Policy DH(b) and the SPD. The appeal therefore fails.
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 226No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 October 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 29 September 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3276816
- Application reference
- 21/0318/HD
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Royal Borough of Greenwich
- Planning authority code
- E09000011
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 10 June 2021
- Valid date
- 10 June 2021
- Start date
- 3 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 March 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 12 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
- 4563
- 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