Appeal 3289957
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
safety rails on flat roof of outbuildings to provide access for maintenance of neighbours’ trees.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider the main issue to be whether the proposed development would result in overlooking leading to such a loss of privacy as to cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property, [site address] , is a detached dwelling. It is located on rising ground in a mainly residential area with a large area of open space to the south of the appeal site.
At the rear of the property is an existing garden outbuilding with an external ladder style stair access to a flat roof. The appellant has fitted safety rails around the roof of the outbuilding. The appellant states that he requires the rails, the subject of this appeal, to provide safe access to maintain the trees on the site boundary behind the garden building.
However, the appellant in his personal statement, also indicates that the roof is one of the only areas in the garden that gets year-round sun, allows views of the sea, which are enjoyed by both his family and friends. The roof is also used to grow pot plants.
It is clear, given the foregoing and in the light of the roof finish and the design and finish of the balustrade to the roof, that it is and could be used for more than just occasional access for maintenance of the boundary planting. Accordingly, I consider that people would be very likely to congregate on the roof which in turn could, given the elevated level of the roof, result in overlooking of neighbouring properties leading to a loss of privacy.
Given the position of the house and its relationship with other neighbouring properties I accept that there is already a degree of mutual overlooking. Further, there is currently a degree of screen planting. However, this could be removed or cut back at any time. On balance therefore I consider that the use of the roof could result in a significant increase in actual and perceived overlooking leading to a loss of privacy of neighbouring residential occupiers resulting in harm to their living conditions. This would be contrary to the objectives of Policies DBE3 and BDE6 of the Canterbury District Local Plan 2017 and the National Planning Policy Framework as they seek to protect residential living conditions.
Section 05
Other matters
I note, amongst other first floor level alterations and additions to neighbouring dwellings, the Juliet balcony to the rear of [address]. Whatever the background to those developments I have considered this proposal on its individual planning merits and my observations on site.
Section 06
Conclusions
For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that 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 1184No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 3 March 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 8 February 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3289957
- Application reference
- CA/21/01672
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Canterbury City Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000106
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
- 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
- 30 December 2021
- Valid date
- 18 January 2022
- Start date
- 24 January 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 October 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 3 March 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
- No
- 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
- 11633
- 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