Appeal 3330296
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
erection of first floor rear and side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is set on a curve in the road in a wedge-shaped plot. The side elevation of the extension would run along the angled shared boundary with No 11, above an existing single storey extension.
Of particular relevance to this appeal, the Council’s Housing Design Guidance SPD (SPD) indicates that the width of extensions should not exceed half the width of the host property and where shared boundaries are set at an angle, proposed extensions should be staggered or stepped to avoid long flank walls that are visible from the street, to ensure that they are subordinate and proportionate. The proposed development would not satisfy these criteria. Nonetheless, it is also necessary to assess the appeal proposal on its own individual merits.
The proposed extension would be highly visible between Nos 9 and 11 and would not be ‘tucked in’ within the street scene as the appellant suggests. Due to its angled profile and bulky appearance, the extension would appear dominating and incongruous, despite its lower ridge, hipped roof profile and set-back from the front elevation. It would not respect or reflect the design of other properties in the surrounding area and would fail to preserve the street scene. Although the design of the appeal property and its neighbours can be described as pleasant, but unremarkable, this does not justify development of poor design quality.
I conclude that the angled alignment to the side boundary, the massing and the awkward roof form of the proposed development would result in an incongruous and disproportionate extension. It would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the visual amenity of the locality. For these reasons it would be contrary to the high-quality design aspirations of Local Plan Policies LP26 and LP30 and SPD.
For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, 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 322No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 8 February 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 January 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3330296
- Application reference
- 1677/23
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Redbridge
- Planning authority code
- E09000026
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 September 2023
- Valid date
- 27 September 2023
- Start date
- 23 November 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 August 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 8 February 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
- 46284
- 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