Appeal 3333664
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
7 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 rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters and Background
Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended, (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions.
Where an application is made for a determination as to whether prior approval is required for development which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g) to Part 1, paragraph A.4(3) provides that the Local Planning Authority may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development.
[name].4 (7) of Class A requires that, where any owner or occupier of an adjoining premises objects to a larger rear extension, the Local Planning Authority must assess the impact of the proposal on the amenity of any adjoining premises.
In this case, an objection was received from neighbouring occupants thus the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority was required. The Council considers that the proposal would cause overshadowing and an adverse outlook to the occupiers of [address] and it is on this basis that the Council refused the application.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is therefore whether prior approval should be granted having regard to the effect of the proposed development on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers at [address], with particular regard to outlook and light.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a two storey mid-terraced dwelling located within a residential area comprised of similar properties.
The proposed extension would be single storey and project into the garden from the original rear elevation of the host dwelling. Its side elevation would form the shared boundary with [address]. The evidence suggests that No 12 is divided into flats, thus it is the ground floor flat, No 12B, which this proposal would have an impact on.
By virtue of its projection, height and very close positioning to the adjacent habitable room window and rear garden area of No 12B, along with its south facing positioning, the proposed extension would be an overly dominant and overbearing addition. It would significantly restrict the outlook from No 12B, create a harmful sense of enclosure and cause considerable overshadowing.
Accordingly, the proposed development would harm the amenities of occupiers of No 12B through the harm to outlook and the degree of overshadowing.
Section 06
[name]
The appellant has made reference to other decisions close to the appeal site however no details have been provided thus I cannot ascertain their relevance.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be 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 1499No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 25 June 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 June 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3333664
- Application reference
- 2170/23
- 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
- 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
- 22 November 2023
- Valid date
- 26 November 2023
- Start date
- 19 December 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 August 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 25 June 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
- 52976
- 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