Appeal 3286616
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
to erect a 1.1m high glass balustrade to the perimeter of the existing single storey flat roof to the rear of property.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The description of the development on the application form was very detailed so in the banner heading above I have used the more succinct description given on both the decision notice and the appeal form.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 7 and 11 [site address] with particular regard to privacy.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a detached house set in a generous plot, that has a single storey flat roof rear extension that extends the full width of the house. It is proposed to erect a glass balustrade around the perimeter of this. At the first floor level the rear elevation of the house has 2 obscure glass windows that serve bathrooms and a set of patio doors with a Juliet balcony that serve a bedroom.
Consequently, at present, there is no access to the flat roof from the house. The appellant has stated that this would not change and that the balustrade is proposed for aesthetic and security purposes rather than to enable the use of the roof area as a balcony.
Nevertheless, whilst there is currently no access from the house the use of this flat roof is not controlled and I have not been made aware that there is any mechanism that would prevent the removal of the Juliet balcony in the future. Therefore, although this may not be the intention of the appellant, the appeal proposal would facilitate the use of the flat roof as a balcony.
Due to its height and proximity to the boundary, the use of the flat roof as a balcony would provide views of No 11 and its rear garden which are currently not possible due to the boundary hedge. Whilst the more limited height of some of the boundary treatment to No 7, means this garden is less private, the use of the balcony would still allow much greater views of this property and its garden. As a result, it would increase both the level of overlooking and the perception of being overlooked for the occupiers of both neighbouring properties.
Consequently, I consider that the proposed development would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 7 and 11 [site address] with particular regard to privacy. Accordingly, it would conflict with Policy H10 of the Tameside Unitary Development Plan (adopted November 2004) which seeks to ensure that developments do not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, I conclude 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 1128No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 11 April 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 4 April 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3286616
- Application reference
- 21/00761/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000008
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
- 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
- 10 November 2021
- Valid date
- 3 December 2021
- Start date
- 13 January 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 8 September 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 11 April 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
- 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
- 13795
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21