Appeal 3334837
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
a retrospective application for retention of raised patio and steps.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
The development the subject of this appeal is partly complete and is referred to below as “the development.”
The Council is satisfied that no harm arises from the development in respect of character and appearance or the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address].
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to privacy.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling located in a residential area characterised by the presence of similar two storey semi-detached dwellings.
Houses in the area are set back from the road behind short parking areas and have long gardens to the rear.
During my site visit, I observed that whilst there is mutual overlooking of rear gardens, this tends to be from rear windows, including from dormers. Outside, overlooking between gardens themselves appeared to me to be limited by the presence of fences and garden features. I also noted that whilst there are plentiful outside sitting or entertaining areas in outside areas, these tend to comprise modest terraces or patios.
The development the subject of this appeal comprises a raised terrace which extends across the full width of the rear garden. Together, its width and projection combine to create a very large raised terrace.
The topography of the area is such that, in order to avoid significant stepping down from the ground floor of the dwelling, the terrace sits considerably higher than the remaining garden area. This combines with its scale to present a visually prominent terrace. 10.During my site visit, I observed that the overall height and scale of the terrace provides significant opportunities for direct overlooking, most notably over the rear garden of Number [address]. In this respect, there is scope for direct overlooking into No 110’s rear garden from various parts of the large terrace. I find that this results in significant harm to the privacy of the occupiers of No 110. 11.Whilst the appellant, in support of the appeal, suggests that fencing might mitigate harm to privacy, I note that the combined height, width and projection of the terrace is such that very tall fencing would be required in order to protect the reasonable privacy of the occupiers of No 110. I find that any such fencing, due to its need to be very tall, would inevitably loom above the rear of No 110 and that this would result in an undue sense of enclosure. 12.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the development harms the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to privacy, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to London Plan Policy D3; and to DMP1 Policy DM1, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.
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 601No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 26 February 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 6 February 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3334837
- Application reference
- P/1638/23
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Harrow
- Planning authority code
- E09000015
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
- 11 December 2023
- Valid date
- 17 December 2023
- Start date
- 21 December 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 September 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 26 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
- 47142
- 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