Appeal 3314577
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
for erection of ground floor rear extension to existing property.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with regard to outlook.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a mid-terrace, two-storey house with a small front garden on [address]. The immediate locality is mainly residential in nature, comprising terraced buildings of broadly similar size and design and a block of flats in [address]. The proposal is for a single storey rear addition to the property.
The development would span the width of the site, adjoining the common boundaries with the adjacent dwellings. Whilst there is an existing boundary wall running between the houses that would match the height of the sidewall of the appeal proposal for approximately the first 6 metres, the built form would be taller than the existing boundary treatment on the border with no.32 for some 3.5 metres beyond. Taken together with the close proximity relative to the adjoining property, I consider that it would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupants of [address]. It would appear oppressive when viewed from the neighbour's facing window in the rear wall of the main house, and the new conservatory that has been constructed adjacent to the hindmost elevation.
I have assessed all matters that have been advanced in support of the development, including the fact that the proposal would not result in a loss of light and would optimise living space within the ground floor of the property. However, the scheme continues to be unacceptable for the reasons I have outlined above. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________
I am aware that a scheme that has recently been approved for a rear addition to the appeal property under Council reference 23/P0047. However, this shows a flank elevation of some 2 metres on the common boundary with no.32, and to my mind appears to be an acceptable solution that would preserve the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring residence.
For the reasons given above I conclude that the proposal would result in material harm to the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with regard to outlook. Consequently it would be contrary to the requirements of Policy D4 of the London Plan 2021, Policy CS14 of the [name] 2011 and [name] D2 and DM D3 of the Council's Site and Policies Plan 2014 which seek to deliver good design that would not have an undue negative impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties.
Section 05
Conclusion
In light of the above and every other matter raised, the appeal should be 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 212No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 May 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 25 April 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3314577
- Application reference
- 22/P2749
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Merton
- Planning authority code
- E09000024
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
- 21 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
- 12 January 2023
- Valid date
- 12 January 2023
- Start date
- 10 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 31 October 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 17 May 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
- 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
- 32765
- 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