Appeal 3303310
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
a detached outbuilding to use as a gaming room/gym/store room.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
The appellant states that he could construct a different outbuilding to the rear than that proposed under the provisions of Class E, Part 1 Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning GPDO. [name] note this, I am mindful that the proposal before me does not comprise permitted development.
In its reasons for refusal the Council referred to harm by reason of overshadowing and daylight. However, no substantive evidence was produced in support of this and I am mindful in this respect that the proposal would involve the removal of large trees, including trees not subject to any Tree Preservation Order. Consequently, this decision focuses upon the main issue set out below.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regards to outlook.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is an extended two storey semi-detached dwelling. It is located in a residential area largely characterised by the presence of similar two storey detached dwellings set back from the road behind parking areas and/or small gardens and with modest gardens to the rear.
During my site visit, I noted that the appeal property’s rear garden backs on to other rear gardens and that the surrounding character of this back garden area is notably green and spacious. [name] observed the presence of various outbuildings, the majority of these appear as modest ancillary buildings, including sheds and small structures, commonly associated with gardens.
The proposed development would comprise a large outbuilding located at the centre of the rear of the garden. The proposal would be of a significant scale and would appear particularly dominant due to the substantial proposed height of the structure.
Taking account of its proposed dimensions, prominent position and the modest overall size of the appeal property’s garden and those of its neighbours, I find that the proposed outbuilding would draw attention to itself as an unduly large and dominant built feature, out of keeping with its green surroundings.
It would be so tall as to loom above garden fences and appear visually dominant in comparison to most other visible garden structures. Consequently, I consider that the proposal would appear as an incongruous feature that would detract considerably from the existing outlook of neighbouring occupiers across garden land. 10.Taking the above into account, the proposed development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regards to outlook, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to London Plan (2021) Policy D3; to Core Strategy1 Policy CS1; to DMP2 Policy DM1 and to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: [name] (2010), which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.
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 601No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 September 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3303310
- Application reference
- P/1332/22
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Harrow
- Planning authority code
- E09000015
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
- 34 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- 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
- 18 July 2022
- Valid date
- 18 July 2022
- Start date
- 15 August 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 May 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 12 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
- 21907
- 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