Appeal 3336293
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
6 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
the erection of a single storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) was published in December 2023, but there are no material changes relevant to the substance of the appeal.
The description of the proposal set out within the submitted planning application forms is very detailed and in the interests of brevity I have adopted that used by the Council as highlighted in the banner heading above. I have determined the appeal on this basis.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the living conditions of the occupants of [address] and [address], with specific reference to outlook.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a semi-detached house located within a triangular shaped site with a shallow rear garden that abuts the side (western) rear garden boundary of [address]. There exists a timber shed located to the rear of the host dwelling and which spans almost for the full length of the aforementioned boundary and is in quite close proximity to it. Consequently, I consider that the outlook from the rear of no3 and its garden would not be materially different from that currently experienced by its occupants.
The same shed is located towards the end of the appeal site’s north western boundary shared with [address] with a gap between that and a lower metal shed located adjacent to the rear elevation of no1. These curtail the outlook from the closest habitable room window on no101 at ground floor level to some degree, although views through into the neighbouring garden are facilitated by the presence of a low timber fence with trellis over.
The proposal would increase built form in close proximity to the rear of no101 such that the outlook therefrom would be far more severely curtailed. [name] cannot agree that the visual presence of built forms at the boundary would not create a new or fresh feature as the situation would be materially different; and notwithstanding its single storey built form and flat roof profile, at the depth proposed it would significantly exceed the 3.5m advocated within the Council’s Design Guidance as a maximum depth from the rear of a property.
[name] find that by reason of its depth and positioning along the whole length of the shared boundary with [address] that the proposal would give rise to a demonstrable loss of outlook and consequent sense of enclosure to neighbouring occupants, contrary to Policies SP5 and DP11 of the Bexley Local Plan (2023) which seek to ensure place making through good design and that appropriate levels of outlook are provided and ensuring existing property’s amenities are appropriately protected.
Section 06
Conclusion
Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal 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 297No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 9 May 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 April 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3336293
- Application reference
- 23/02088/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Bexley
- Planning authority code
- E09000004
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
- 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
- 3 January 2024
- Valid date
- 3 January 2024
- Start date
- 26 January 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 16 October 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 9 May 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
- 50775
- 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