Appeal 3329022
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
8 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
demolition of the existing conservatory and construction of a single storey rear extension which will extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling by 5.50m, for which the maximum height will be 3.00m and the height at the eaves will be 2.40m.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure
The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the amenity of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook.
Section 05
Reasons for the Recommendation
The appeal property is a two-storey mid-terraced dwelling with a uPVC conservatory at the rear. It is adjoined to the south by [address]. The proposal would replace the existing conservatory with a brick walled extension which would span almost the entire width of the host dwelling and would extend out to around 5.5 metres from the main rear wall of the property.
The appeal proposal, by virtue of its extent of projection, combined with its height and massing would appear as a dominant and oppressive addition particularly when viewed from the ground floor rear habitable room window of [address].
In coming to that view, I acknowledge that there is an existing boarded fence, approximately 1.8 metres high, which separates the rear garden of the appeal property and [address]. I also acknowledge that the appeal property is set at a lower land level than [address]. Notwithstanding these factors, the proposed extension would still be much higher than the existing fence and would appear as an intrusive form of development.
In conclusion, the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers of [address] with regard to outlook. To that end, it is therefore considered that prior approval for the development should not be granted.
Section 06
Other Matters
The Council has raised concern regarding an inconsistency of information provided by the appellant. This appears to relate to the overall height of the proposal and the inclusion of a roof lantern. However, it is clear from the application as well as the submitted drawings that the ridge height of the proposal would be 3 metres with the lantern being slightly higher. It is evident from the submitted plans that the overall height of the proposal (including the roof lantern) would not exceed 4 metres as stipulated by the GPDO. The Council also agree that would be the case. Taking this into account the proposal would be ‘permitted development’ and I consider that any inconsistency is not sufficient to invalidate the whole submission. Notwithstanding that, given my conclusion on the matter of impact to neighbour amenity, I see no reason to consider this matter any further.
Section 07
Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed, and prior approval should not be granted. Ifeanyi Chukwujekwu APPEALS PLANNING OFFICER
Section 08
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence, and my representative’s report, and on that basis the appeal is 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 2894No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 April 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 16 January 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3329022
- Application reference
- 23/1501/PN1
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Royal Borough of Greenwich
- Planning authority code
- E09000011
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
- 3. Refused prior approval of permitted development rights
- 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
- 6 September 2023
- Valid date
- 22 September 2023
- Start date
- 21 November 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 June 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 19 April 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
- 49808
- 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