Appeal 3305826
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
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
two-storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a two-storey rear extension at [site address] , Hartford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application ref: 21/02993/FUL, dated 12 July 2021 and subject to the conditions in the schedule at the end of this decision.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of future occupants of the dwelling in respect of outlook.
Section 04
Reasons
No. [site address] is a two storey dwellinghouse. It is situated at a slightly higher level than that of the neighbouring property of No.[address]. That neighbouring building is a bungalow with a rear single storey glazed addition which appears to be used as a utility area. The sole reason for refusal is that the proposed obscure-glazed window to serve bedroom 3 in the gable end wall facing the bungalow would not afford any outlook to the bedroom and would thereby result in significant adverse impacts to amenity and not safeguard the quality of life of the future occupiers of the proposed development.
The appellant advises that the Council would not accept a clear glazed window in the proposed location because, in its opinion, it would create a privacy issue for the adjacent bungalow. The appellant contends that there would not be a privacy issue, and at least no more than existed before the application for the development was made. In their opinion, a clear glazed window should be allowed.
At my site visit it was apparent that the bungalow was sited at a lower level than the footway next to the gable end wall of the appeal building. There is a screen fence and hedge along the boundary. The window in the rear elevation of the bungalow facing the gable end wall of No.46 is obscure glazed. Two windows are proposed in the gable end wall of No.46 at first floor level. The window to a utility room would be obscure glazed. The window serving bedroom 3 would also be obscure glazed. However, if that window was clear glazed, I consider that any loss of privacy for the occupants of the bungalow would be insignificant. That is because views from that window would be down towards the roof of the bungalow, the utility room, obscure glazed window and its adjacent yard. The yard does not appear to be suitable as a sitting out area, being narrow in width and on the northern side of the building where it would receive minimal sunlight. Moreover, the bungalow has lawns and garden space on the other sides of the building next to [address] and [address]. If a clear glazed window was provided for bedroom 3 rather than obscure glazed as proposed it would resolve the Council’s concern regarding the lack of outlook from bedroom 3 and consequent poor living conditions for its future occupants.
Subject to a condition allowing a clear glazed window to bedroom 3 I find that the proposal would have no harmful effect on the living conditions of future occupants of the dwelling in respect of outlook and would cause no significant loss of privacy for occupants of the bungalow at No.[address]. The proposal would therefore fail to conflict with policies DM2 and DM21 of the [name] and Chester Council Local Plan (Part 2), and the [name] and Domestic Outbuildings Supplementary Planning Document which all seek to ensure that development does not have a significant adverse effect on the amenity of neighbours including loss of privacy.
Section 05
Other Matters
The appellant has referred to a previous proposal which included a 4-metre-deep rear extension. However, I must determine this appeal on the basis of the plans refused by the Council.
Section 06
Conditions
In addition to the standard condition for commencement of development I have included a condition to specify the approved plans. A condition is imposed requiring the use of external materials to match those of the main dwelling in the interest of maintaining the character and appearance of the area. A condition is also included to specify that the window to bedroom 3 should be clear glazed in order to provide acceptable living conditions for its future occupants.
Section 07
Conclusion
I have taken all other matters raised into account, including the benefit of providing additional accommodation at this existing family dwelling. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Section 08
Schedule of Conditions
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this permission.
The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, with the exception of the window to bedroom 3 which is the subject of condition 4 below: location Plan 21- 818/LP and existing and proposed floor plans 21-818 sheet 1 revision A.
The window serving bedroom 3 shall be fitted with clear glazing and thereafter retained.
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 108No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 8 December 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 8 November 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3305826
- Application reference
- 21/02993/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Cheshire West and Chester
- Planning authority code
- E06000050
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
- 57 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
- 25 August 2022
- Valid date
- 25 August 2022
- Start date
- 4 October 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 June 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 8 December 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
- 24807
- 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