Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3294811

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

8 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 allowed, and planning permission is granted for a first-floor extension and alterations (alternative scheme with glazed gable) at [site address] , Whitwell, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application 22/00002/FUL, dated 4 January 2022, and subject to the following

  2. Section 03

    Procedural Matters

    A similar scheme has already been approved1 excepting for the inclusion of glazing on the northwest facing elevation at first floor.

  3. Section 04

    The Main issue

    The main issue is the impact upon the residential amenities of the occupants of 2, [address] by overlooking from the first-floor windows on the rear elevation of the proposed development. 1 Ref 21/00549/FUL

  4. Section 05

    Reasons

    The proposed extension includes a north-western elevation with fully glazed bi-fold doors. The appeal property is not parallel with its boundary with the adjacent dwelling at 2 [address]. Rather than the first-floor extension being set at 90 degrees to the boundary it is set at approximately 75 degrees to it, and which means that there is a greater degree of overlooking of part of the garden of the adjacent property.

    The angle of the proposed extension to the boundary means that much of the glazing would be within about 5 metres or less of the boundary with 2 [address]. The Council’s Development Guidance and Requirements: Supplementary Planning Document 2015 (SPD) states that ‘habitable room windows that overlook neighbouring garden space should normally be at least 10 metres from the boundary. Where a new property overlooks an existing garden, these distances may need to be increased. Oblique or obscured outlook from habitable room windows within 10m of the boundary may be allowed at the discretion of the case officer dependent upon site specific considerations’.

    In this instance, while there would be more overlooking of the neighbouring garden than if the proposed extension were set at 90 degrees to the boundary, and which would be a more normal situation in terms of any overlooking, the extra degree of overlooking would not be so additionally significant. Furthermore, on my site visit, I was able to observe that the occupants of [address] have undertaken planting along the boundary with the appeal property in order to reduce any overlooking and that this has already, very largely achieved that effect.

    Therefore, I conclude that, while there would be some conflict with the SPD, the overlooking would be oblique, and the SPD allows some latitude in such circumstances. In addition, the proposed development would accord with policy SC3 of the Council’s Local Plan 2020(LP) which requires high quality development.

  5. Section 06

    Other Matters

    A similar scheme to the appeal proposal (other than the bi-fold windows) has been approved and to which I give significant weight in the decision-making process. The LPA notes that there would be a 12 metre separation distance between the proposed extension and the side elevation of the neighbouring dwellings and considers that there would be minimal impact in terms of daylighting. I see no reason to disagree.

    The LPA states that the appeal dwelling is a non- designated heritage asset, though I have no other details before me. Paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (the Framework) notes that ‘the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset’.

    However, a similar scheme has already been approved and neither of the main parties have advanced a case that harm would be caused to the significance of the non-designated heritage asset, and I have no reason to depart from that position.

  6. Section 07

    Conditions

    I have imposed the standard time condition and a condition to ensure the development is in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

  7. Section 08

    Conclusion

    For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

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 163No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    16 June 2022Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    31 May 2022 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3294811
Application reference
22/00002/FUL
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Bolsover District Council
Planning authority code
E07000033

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
47 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
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
14 March 2022
Valid date
14 March 2022
Start date
23 March 2022
Planning authority decision date
16 February 2022
Appeal decision date
16 June 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
16505
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