Appeal 3305439
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 first floor extension and double storey side/rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The description of the proposed development is taken from the application form. The Council’s decision notice describes the proposed development as a “two storey side/rear extension and first floor rear extension with side juliette balcony.”
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 and privacy.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a two storey end terrace dwelling. It has a small single storey element to the rear, which is very low in height and which has a lean-to roof.
The appeal property’s garden is located to the side of and off-set to the rear of the dwelling. Unusually, Number [address]’s rear garden, along with a narrow access to that property, is located immediately to the rear of the single storey element of the appeal property.
The appeal property is located in a residential area, which is characterised by the presence of a wide range of two storey detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings. Houses tend to be set behind short parking areas and/or front gardens and have longer gardens to the rear.
The proposal would include the replacement of the single storey rear element with a two storey extension. This would be built immediately adjacent to No 29’s rear access and garden.
I find that the immediate proximity and two storey height of the proposed rear extension would result in it appearing to “loom” down upon No 29’s rear access and garden to an overbearing extent. Further, the scale and immediacy of the proposal would result in an overwhelming sense of enclosure above the access to No 29 and this, together with the presence of two prominent “letterbox” windows and two new large windows and one new small obscure window would also result in the proposal appearing visually intrusive when seen from No 29’s rear garden.
The proposed two storey side extension would include a juliette balcony. This would provide views out across the rear garden of Number [address] proximity. However, there is already some significant overlooking of No 25’s rear garden by other properties and whilst there would be an additional impact on privacy arising from the proposal the subject of this appeal, the harm arising would not, on its own, result in such harm as to warrant dismissal of the appeal. It is a factor, however, which adds to the harm identified above. 10.Taking the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regards to outlook and privacy. This would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; and to Chiltern District Local Plan (1997, altered 2001, consolidated 2007 and 2011) Policies GC3, H13 and H14, 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
- 15 November 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 19 October 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3305439
- Application reference
- PL/22/1073/FA
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Buckinghamshire Council - Chiltern Area *
- Planning authority code
- E07000005
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
- 18 August 2022
- Valid date
- 18 August 2022
- Start date
- 13 September 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 June 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 15 November 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
- 23570
- 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