Appeal 3280994
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
a first floor extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure
The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regards to light and outlook.
Section 05
Reasons for the Recommendation
The Council’s reason for refusal focuses on the effect of the proposed extension when viewed from the private rear garden of No 9. I have considered the appeal on that basis.
The proposed first-floor rear extension above the existing single-storey extension would be in close proximity to the boundary with [address]. Although the extension would be positioned adjacent to area of garden furthest from the dwelling at No 9, given the modest size of the garden together with the scale of the extension and the close proximity to the boundary, the proposed extension would dominate the outlook from much of the rear garden. Due to its height and width, it would have a materially harmful enclosing and overbearing effect on the garden of No 9. The sense of enclosure is exacerbated by the presence of the garage to No 9. While this could be removed, I have assessed the proposal having regard to the current situation as required.
Furthermore, as a result of the scale of the proposed extension and the orientation of the properties, and as evidenced by the shadow analysis submitted by the appellant, the proposal would result in greater overshadowing of the part of the garden at No 9 closest to the appeal dwelling. This together with the increased sense of enclosure and overbearing effect, would cause material harm to the users of the garden.
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would detract from the enjoyment and thereby cause harm to the living conditions of occupiers of No
Consequently, the proposal would conflict with policy L7 of the Trafford Local Plan: [name] (January 2012), which requires development to not prejudice the living conditions of occupants of adjacent properties including by reason of overbearing, visual intrusion and overshadowing. The proposal would also fail to comply with the guidance in the SPD.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed because of the conflict with the development plan and there being no material considerations which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the
Section 07
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and, on that basis, I agree with the recommendation and shall dismiss the appeal.
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 1463No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 December 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3280994
- Application reference
- 104501/HHA/21
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000009
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
- 210 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
- 14 August 2021
- Valid date
- 14 August 2021
- Start date
- 14 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 24 July 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 22 December 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
- 8119
- 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