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 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
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
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.
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.
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