Appeal 3278693
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
to erect front and rear single storey extensions with a new first floor balcony to the front elevation.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
Permission was granted under Ref 3/20/1007/HOU to the single storey extensions included in this application, the balcony now sought having been removed from that application and replaced by a ‘Juliet’ balcony. These single storey extensions have now been erected on site. As a result, there is no need for me to consider them further. The main issue is therefore the effect of the proposed balcony on the living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining dwellings, with particular regard to whether the development would result in unacceptable overlooking.
Section 04
Reasons
The houses on [address] face south over a public footpath and open land towards the [name]. It was clear from my site visit that it is the south-facing front gardens that are predominantly used by residents for sitting out, and that the rear gardens, fronting [address], serve a more utilitarian purpose. These front gardens are delineated by a mixture of iron railings and low hedges. As a result, the gardens are not private spaces, with pedestrians passing on the footpath to the front, and neighbours to the sides, able to obtain views into them of anyone enjoying their front garden. However, such views into the front gardens along [address] are largely transient, resulting mostly from people walking past the boundaries.
The proposal would introduce a balcony at first floor level on No 123, which, given its orientation and the views obtained from it, would be likely to be well used by the appellants for sitting out. The balcony would not project forward of No 121 and would be set away from the boundary with No 125. However, it would still provide elevated views of significant sections of the front gardens of those two adjoining houses. This would give rise to overlooking, and the perception of being overlooked, of a different magnitude to that currently possible from ground level, or through the first floor window located behind the proposed balcony. Given that the areas overlooked appear to be the principal sitting out areas of the two affected houses, I consider that the additional loss of privacy that would result from the appeal proposal would be unacceptable.
I conclude that the proposed balcony would result in an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining dwellings, by reason of increased overlooking, contrary to Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1 [name] 2014.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, 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 1850No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 26 November 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 16 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3278693
- Application reference
- 3/20/2151/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Dorset
- Planning authority code
- E06000059
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
- 25 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
- 9 July 2021
- Valid date
- 9 July 2021
- Start date
- 22 October 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 5 May 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 26 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
- 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
- 6659
- 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