Appeal 3314828
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
a single-storey side and rear extension (retrospective).
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a single-storey side and rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, 22/01080/FUL, dated 13 October 2022.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
The Council refer to discrepancies between the plans but does not provide specific details. As this is a retrospective scheme, I have had regard to the development as built which reflects the floor and elevation plans.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the impact of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address], with specific regard to light and outlook.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is located at the junction of [address] and [address] and is attached to No.[address]. The arrangement of ‘L’ shaped semi-detached buildings is replicated at each corner with these properties having an unusual boundary to the rear which is angled.
The single-storey extension to the southern elevation also infills the area to the side (east) up to the angled boundary and projects in front of the rear elevation of No.21. However, it follows the existing boundary alignment and due to the layout, the existing boundary fence and two-storey dwelling already restrict the outlook from No.21 and will create overshadowing in the later part of the day. Additionally, planning permission has been granted for an extension of the same form, but with less depth (Council reference 20/01494/FUL). This extant consent represents a fallback and establishes a substantial length of development adjacent to the boundary.
The appeal scheme has a shallow-pitched roof and a reduced eaves height compared to the extant scheme. The projection above the boundary fence is modest and having regard to the unorthodox relationship with the neighbour and the extant consent I do not find that the increased depth, of less than 1m, will significantly further reduce the light and outlook from the ground floor windows.
As such, I do not find that the proposal has a direct material impact which would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.21. Thus, the development does not conflict with Policy SDP1 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (2015) which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development does not have unacceptable impacts on the health, safety and amenity of the site and its citizens. This policy is generally consistent with advice in Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (the Framework), which requires well-designed places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Section 06
Conclusion and Conditions
For the reasons set out and having regard to all other matters raised the appeal is allowed. As the development has already been completed conditions are not necessary.
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 362No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 13 June 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 23 May 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3314828
- Application reference
- 22/01080/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Southampton City Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000045
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 17 January 2023
- Valid date
- 17 January 2023
- Start date
- 4 May 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 December 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 13 June 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
- 33934
- 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