Appeal 3315593
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
described on the application form as “Lower ground floor single storey rear extension”.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the lower ground floor [address], with particular regard to natural light and outlook.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a lower ground floor flat. It forms part of a 3-storey house with a mansard addition and benefits from a relatively long rear garden. The house forms part of a long terrace of houses of similar age and appearance, many of which include rear extensions.
The property includes a full-width single-storey addition that extends a significant distance beyond the original main rear elevation. This, together with the upper ground floor rear element, and a similar configuration at the rear of [address], results in a significantly enclosed private amenity area at the rear of the lower ground floor flat at No. 48 and limited outlook from, and natural light to, rooms at the rear of this dwelling.
The proposal would enlarge the existing extension so that it would align with the rear addition at [address]. I recognise that this would be a relatively modest addition and would only introduce a small additional section of wall on the boundary shared with No. 48. However, given the very poor existing situation at the rear of the lower ground floor flat at No. 48, the proposal would make an already poor situation materially worse.
I conclude therefore that, due to its height, siting and rearward protrusion, the proposal would reduce outlook from, and natural light to, the lower ground floor flat at No. 48 to a degree that would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of this flat. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policies DC1, DC4 and HO11 of the Hammersmith & Fulham Local Plan (2018) and [name] HS7 of the Council’s Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018) which require that development should have no detrimental impact on daylight, sunlight and outlook from the windows of adjoining properties.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.
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 246No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 25 April 2023Differs from the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 27 March 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3315593
- Application reference
- 2022/02593/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
- Planning authority code
- E09000013
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
- Unknown
- 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
- 27 January 2023
- Valid date
- 27 January 2023
- Start date
- 14 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 November 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 18 April 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
- 31356
- 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