Appeal 3328078
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
4 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 2 storey side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions for neighbouring occupiers as regards outlook and light.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal scheme is for the demolition of the existing attached garage to No. 26 and its replacement with a two storey side addition. The design is a revised scheme which is acceptable to the Council as regards its appearance. However, the officer’s report explains that the extension would have a significant effect on the light and outlook from two windows in the flank of No. 24.
For the appellant the grounds of appeal argue that No. 24 is higher than No. 26; that the extension would remain inside the footprint of the existing garage, and that the development would keep the side footpath as separation between the two houses. The extension would also not be directly in front of the two windows.
I have taken these points into account, but consider that the proximity of the proposed two storey addition to the ground floor kitchen window would be such as to be overbearing in the outlook from that room. Furthermore, as the appeal dwelling is positioned to the southwest of No. 24 I am satisfied that harm would also result from a loss of natural light to the kitchen as a result of the development.
The absence of technical information from both the appellant and the Council precludes a more precise assessment on the loss of daylight and / or sunlight, but I am nonetheless satisfied that there would be an unacceptably adverse impact for the adjoining occupiers. This would particularly be the case as regards outlook.
There would also be a noticeable impact in terms of light and outlook in relation to the landing window of No. 24. However this would be less pronounced because of its higher position and also less harmful because the window is not to a habitable room.
I acknowledge the appellant’s point that the objection has arisen after the scheme was amended from having a flat roof. However, if this refers to a flat roof at eaves level I consider that the Council would have been correct to reject this because of a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene of [address].
I have had regard to all other matters raised but conclude that the appeal scheme would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the living conditions for the occupiers of No. [address] in terms of outlook and light. This would be in conflict with Policy ENV16 of the [name], Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 2015 and with paragraph 135f) of Government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework 2023.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
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 204No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 January 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 19 December 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3328078
- Application reference
- P/HOU/2023/02222
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Dorset
- Planning authority code
- E06000059
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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 18 August 2023
- Valid date
- 18 August 2023
- Start date
- 5 October 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 20 June 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 17 January 2024
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
- 44938
- 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