Appeal 3339915
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 ‘Single storey rear extension to replace existing and alterations to elevations.’
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect upon the living conditions of the appeal site, with particular regard to access to light and outlook.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site forms one half of a semi-detached bungalow. The bungalow is of brick construction with a concrete tiled roof and contains an extension to the rear which is utilised as a utility room. The utility room is constructed in front of and encapsulates the existing rear bedroom window which although large, only receives secondary light passing through the windows in the Utility room/rear extension and would receive no natural ventilation from outside. Currently the rear bedroom has very poor access to secondary light, as well as having limited outlook or ventilation given that the window looks into the utility room of the dwelling.
It is proposed to demolish the utility room and construct a rear extension that is setback from the boundary and within the small setback would propose a narrow window to the rear bedroom providing primary access to natural light and ventilation. The proposed extension would be three metres deep with the proposed window to the rear bedroom having the tall boundary fence on one side and the extension to the other, giving a long and narrow tunnelling effect in terms of outlook. Whilst the outlook and ventilation would be better than the existing condition in terms of that access to light and ventilation would not be via another room, the proposal would still be poor and not to a level where it would be acceptable and in accordance with the Development Plan.
Consequently, the proposed scheme would not provide acceptable access to natural light and outlook, and would therefore be contrary to the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan Policy ENV2 which seeks that development not have Appeal Decision: APP/V0510/D/24/3339915 a detrimental impact upon the amenity of existing and future occupiers, which is also supported by the guidance regarding living condition as per the [name] and the [name].
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, 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 decision date · page 1
- 5 June 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 May 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3339915
- Application reference
- 23/01346/ful
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- East Cambridgeshire District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000009
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 1 March 2024
- Valid date
- 1 March 2024
- Start date
- 28 March 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 25 January 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 5 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
- 52037
- 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