Appeal 3314500
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
6 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
an outbuilding.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
Since it made its decision in this case, the Council has adopted the Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed outbuilding on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.
Section 05
Reasons
No 67 is a two storey detached dwelling in a residential road of similar property types.
Policy DM9 of the now adopted Local Plan concerns design quality and includes the requirement that development proposals must take account of the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Amenity in this respect includes providing good natural light and that the development is not overbearing and does not detract from neighbouring occupiers’ outlook.
The proposed outbuilding would be sited in the rearmost part of the host dwelling’s back garden, next to the shared side boundary with the neighbouring property, No 65, and the rear boundary of the nearest property on [address]. The boundary treatment to the side, shared with No 65, is a fence of some 1.3 metres height, while the rear boundary fence is partly lower and partly higher than this.
The new building would have walls measuring some seven metres long along both boundaries and would have an overall height of three metres. Consequently, it would be a substantive building of greater height and bulk than a typical domestic outbuilding, such as the smaller summerhouse in No 65’s garden. As a result of its consistent height across the whole building with a flat roof, it would be a prominent feature projecting well above the boundary fences. Due to its combined height and length close to the side and rear boundaries, it would be an overbearing and dominant presence seen from the two neighbouring gardens. The black timber cladding would accentuate its overall dominant presence in this location.
Despite its height and overall size there is no basis to find, however, that the proposed building would harmfully overshadow the neighbouring gardens; any such effects that might occur would be minimal and temporary with regard to sunlight. I acknowledge that the outbuilding is intended for the appellant’s family’s use incidental to the main residential use, but this is insufficient reason to set aside the harm that has been found due to its overall size and location.
Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed outbuilding would have a materially harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to outlook. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy DM9 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011- 2033 (2023), as described above.
In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the representations made by interested parties, which largely concern matters addressed under the main issue.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given, it is concluded that the appeal should not succeed.
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 154No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 July 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 June 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3314500
- Application reference
- EPF/0770/22
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Epping Forest District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000072
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
- 0.07 hectares
- Floor space
- 36 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
- 11 January 2023
- Valid date
- 20 April 2023
- Start date
- 5 June 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 November 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 17 July 2023
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
- 35702
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21