Appeal 3336669
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
described as ‘rear side 6.00 meter large extension’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Background and Main Issue
Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) permits the enlargement of a dwelling subject to the satisfaction of expressed limitations, restrictions and conditions. One such, for the purposes of this appeal, requires an assessment to be made as to the effect of a given scheme on the amenity of any adjoining premises, considering any representations received.
Therefore, the main issue is whether prior approval should be granted considering the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with regard to outlook and daylight/sunlight.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is attached to No 3 which creates a sensitive relationship. No 3 is located to the east of the appeal site and benefits from an open outlook across a long linear rear garden.
The appeal property has an existing modest ground floor rear extension that is set back from the shared boundary with No 3. However the proposed rear extension would be on the shared boundary and of a significant length, the full extent of which would be experienced from the ground floor French doors and the private outdoor space at No 3. Despite being single storey, the proposal would bring development closer to No 3, introducing a blank brick wall at proximity. This visual change would appear as a dominant and oppressive feature, narrowing the outlook experienced from both inside No 3 and from the private outdoor space.
Owing to the increase in depth at the shared boundary with no set back, it seems likely that the proposal would result in a noticeable reduction in daylight/sunlight for the occupiers of No 3 at certain times of the day, to the extent that it would have an unacceptable effect on their living conditions. In coming to this conclusion, I have taken account of the location of the proposed extension to the southwest of the rear elevation of No 3.
As such, the proposal would be unduly harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with regard to outlook and daylight/sunlight. Insofar as they are a material consideration, the proposal conflicts with Policy 30 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010 – 2025 (2010) and Policies DMD8 and DMD11 of the Development Management Document (2014) which together, amongst other things, require that development has special regard to its context and preserves amenity in terms of daylight, sunlight and outlook.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the above reasons, and taking account of all other matters raised, I conclude that 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 3895No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 15 August 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 6 August 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3336669
- Application reference
- 23/03586/PRH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Enfield
- Planning authority code
- E09000010
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
- 25 m²
- 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
- 10 January 2024
- Valid date
- 10 January 2024
- Start date
- 14 February 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 5 December 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 15 August 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
- 55672
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21