Appeal 3302005
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
4 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
rear ground and first floor extensions. Alterations to windows/doors.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Reasons
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.
[address] is a residential street with a suburban character. The appeal site, No45 is a semi-detached, two storey dwelling with a long rear garden (a feature common to its neighbours).
The property benefits from a rear single and two storey extension under council reference 21/4318/HOT. The boundaries of this scheme are helpfully shown on the submitted ground and first floor proposed layout drawings. The appeal proposals would result in a further 0.5m in depth to the ground floor extension to a depth of 4m, as well as a larger first floor flat roofed extension with a further 1.7m in depth to 3.10m.
The neighbouring, adjoining dwelling, No43 [address] has not been subject to an extension. At the site visit, I could see what appeared to be a loft conversion at No43 was underway. The two properties are separated by a close-boarded fence of approx. 1.8m high.
Policy LP8 (Amenity and Living Conditions) of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan (2018) (LP) requires that all new development protects the amenity and living conditions for occupants of new, existing, adjoining and neighbouring properties.
[name] and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2015) (SPD) provides guidance for extensions, advising that proposals which would result in an ‘unacceptable sense of enclosure or appear overbearing when seen from neighbouring gardens or rooms will not be permitted’.
The SPD also provides guidance on parameters for rear extensions in order to minimise harm to neighbouring amenity. For semi-detached dwellings, it sets out that extensions should not exceed 3.5m in depth, albeit this is subject to the individual circumstances of the site and its surroundings.
Considered alone, an additional 0.5m on the permitted ground floor extension would not result in excessive harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No43. However, the first floor extension would in my view, add a significant additional area of built form that would, cumulatively, appear overbearing from the perspective of the occupiers at No43.
Whilst the proposals would not result in a loss of daylight/sunlight to No43, nor impede the 45 degree line when taken from the nearest first floor window of No43, the outlook from the ground floor windows of No43 would still be harmed by the additional blank bulk of the extension.
I therefore consider this would result in offence to policy LP8 as well as the relevant parts of the SPD.
Section 04
Conclusions
For the reasons given and having regard to all other matters raised the appeal is 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 2526No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 28 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 4 October 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3302005
- Application reference
- 22/1114/HOT
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E09000027
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
- 45 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
- 28 June 2022
- Valid date
- 28 June 2022
- Start date
- 19 July 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 May 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 28 October 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
- 22681
- 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