Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

Appeal 3288819

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 works

One-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

No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. Section 03

    Background and Main Issue

    The planning permission granted for the demolition of existing rear single storey extension and replacement with two storey new rear extension, refurbishment of the building envelope including roof finishes and stone windows and internal refurbishment and alterations works includes a condition requiring the first-floor window on the rear elevation of the proposal (east facing) to be fitted with obscured glazing or equivalent and for it to be permanently retained thereafter.

    The reason given for imposing the disputed condition is to protect the amenities of adjoining/nearby properties from unacceptable overlooking/loss of privacy and/or represent quality design in accordance with policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

    Taking the above background into account, the main issue is whether the proposed variation of Condition 5, to replace the obscure first floor window on the rear elevation of the proposal (east facing) with clear glazing, is reasonable and necessary to safeguard the living conditions of existing and future residents of neighbouring properties, particularly with regard to overlooking.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    The appeal site is located in a prominent position, opposite the Church of [name] the Great, close to the intersection between [site address] and [address]. Immediately adjacent to it, to the rear of the appeal site, is another residential dwelling: [name]. [name] consists of an “L” shaped two storey residential building which runs, in part, parallel to the appeal site. In addition to this, the vast majority of [name] garden backs directly onto the appeal site.

    The layout of [name], in relation to the appeal site, does mean that a significant part of its existing garden would be overlooked by the first-floor window of the rear elevation of the [site address] were it not to be obscured. Furthermore, the same window, if not obscured, would also allow for fairly unobstructed views onto what appears to be a habitable room on the first floor of [name].

    Policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016) does state that development should provide an adequate level of privacy, outlook, sunlight, and daylight, and should not be unduly overbearing.

    This approach is in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which states, in paragraph 130, that planning decisions should ensure that development is safe, inclusive, and accessible and promotes health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. The Framework, in paragraph 56, also states that planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects.

    Due to the relative position of the appeal site in relation to [name] and the elevated position of the east facing first floor window, the removal of Condition 5 would lead to a significant loss of adequate standards of amenity for existing and future users particularly in relation to overlooking.

    The need to protect these standards, I find is necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable. Furthermore, no further evidence has been presented to me which would lead me to believe that Condition 5 would not be reasonable in all other respects.

    Consequently, I consider that the removal of Condition 5 would result in significant harm to the living conditions of existing and future residents of neighbouring properties, particularly those of [name], in regard to overlooking.

  4. Section 05

    Conclusion

    For the reasons given 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 1789No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    29 April 2022Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    11 April 2022 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3288819
Application reference
21/01956/HP
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Wychavon District Council
Planning authority code
E07000238

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
2. Refused permission to vary or remove a condition(s)
Appeal reason
Appeal Against Conditions
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
0 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
10 December 2021
Valid date
10 December 2021
Start date
12 January 2022
Planning authority decision date
15 October 2021
Appeal decision date
29 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
14530
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