Appeal 3294327
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
described as a “single storey rear extension within the full width of the rear house with pitched roof and rooflights above”.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The main issues are the effects of the proposals on: (i) the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook and natural light.
Section 04
Character and Appearance
The appeal property is a 2-storey end-of-terrace house with a hipped roof and a modest single-storey extension to the rear. It is situated in a residential street comprising terraced housing of similar age and appearance. Whilst many of the houses to either side of the appeal property include rear additions, these are generally modest in size and subordinate to the houses to which they are attached.
The proposal would comprise the erection of a full-width, single-storey, rear extension with a pitched roof, a rear-facing gable and a largely glazed rear elevation. This would be roughly two-thirds of the footprint of the host property and extend further into the garden than nearby additions. This, combined with its height and form, would result in an addition that would be overly prominent in the context of its surroundings.
Due to the combined effect of its footprint, height and form I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It therefore fails to comply with [name](a) and DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name] (2014) (RGLP) which, among other matters, require development to be of a high quality of design, limited to a scale and design appropriate to the locality. The proposal is also contrary to the aims of Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and the guidance in the Council’s Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018) (SPD).
Section 05
Living Conditions
The proposal would result in the formation of a substantial wall on the boundary shared with the attached next door house, [address]. This neighbouring property includes a window and glazed door close to the boundary together with a hard surfaced amenity area. Due to its height and rear protrusion the flank wall would significantly reduce natural light reaching, and outlook from, the windows and outdoor space immediately to the rear of No. 92.
For this reason I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 92. It therefore fails to comply with RGLP Policy DH(b) and the aims of the SPD, both of which seek to protect the amenity of adjacent occupiers.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.
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 246No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 August 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 July 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3294327
- Application reference
- 21/4000/HD
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Royal Borough of Greenwich
- Planning authority code
- E09000011
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
- 7 March 2022
- Valid date
- 7 March 2022
- Start date
- 15 March 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 January 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 18 August 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
- 19489
- 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