Appeal 3287986
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
construction of a new two storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
This is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of 97 Millfield with particular reference to daylight and sunlight.
Section 04
Reasons
There is no objection to the single storey element of the proposal which would align with the extension at No 99. However, the two-storey projection would be directly along the boundary with No 97 and would curtail daylight and morning sunlight to the living room. This is served by patio doors that would be adjacent to the proposed extension and also by a glazed door. The proposal would fall foul of the 45 degree test outlined in the Supplementary Planning Document on [name].
Whilst this is useful guidance, it is not definitive. Nevertheless, the 45 degree lines would exceed the centre of the adjoining window by some distance. In view of this, the depth of the first floor addition and the orientation and narrow width of the affected property, there would be a significant reduction in daylight and sunlight. The impact would be materially greater than that arising from the existing fence or a ‘permitted development’ single storey extension.
As such, the living conditions of the occupiers of 97 Millfield would be seriously eroded. There would be conflict with Policy EN2 of the [name] and Development Management Plan which seeks to safeguard the amenities of existing occupants of nearby properties. The proposal would not accord with the development plan and no material considerations outweigh this conflict.
Section 05
Conclusion
Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR
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 311No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 30 December 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 December 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3287986
- Application reference
- 21/02437/HOUSE
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Sevenoaks District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000111
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
- 19 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
- 29 November 2021
- Valid date
- 29 November 2021
- Start date
- 22 December 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 13 September 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 30 December 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
- 25869
- 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