Appeal 3343837
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
Proposed first floor extension over rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Proposed first floor extension over rear extension [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P23/V2719/HH. and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following
Section 03
conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: IVY-22 A101 and IVY-22 A103.
Section 04
Main Issue
The Main Issue is the effect of the development upon living conditions for occupiers of No [address].
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site (No.6) sits within a terrace block of four modest two-storey nineteenth century dwellings1 arranged on the eastern side of ‘[address]’ a group of traditional houses2 irregularly arranged around small grassy areas within the settlement of Watchfield. The proposal relates to a small first floor extension at the rear of the house with no impact upon the street scene or wider area, including upon the setting of the listed building, 9 and [address] opposite the appeal site. Due to the terraced configuration of No.6 and its neighbours, the proposed extension would abut the boundary with the adjacent No.[address] (No.8). 1 Nos. 4-10 even. 2 Including the [name] listed Nos. 9 and [address] opposite the appeal site.
The Council’s reason for refusal relates to the enclosing effect of the proposed extension upon No.8 where, at the time of refusal, an upper floor habitable room window would have been overshadowed by the proposed extension in conflict with the [name] and Vale of [name] SPD ([name]) which sets out a ‘45o rule’. This seeks to prevent obstruction of an area set from the centre of a habitable room window.
At the time of my visit I observed that the first floor window in the adjoining house (No.8) which was the subject of the Council’s concern was obscure glazed. This suggested planning permission Ref P22/V0312/HH referred to by the Council in their officer report was, now, likely implemented such that the room it served was a bathroom appearing in that proposal but in any event, the nature of the glazing to that window indicated that the room it served was no longer a habitable room.
On that basis there would be no impediment of living conditions for occupiers of the room affected in the adjoining dwelling from the proposed upper floor extension. In consequence, as my reasoning sets out, I find no conflict with the [name] nor, therefore, with Development Policy 23 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan Part 1 (adopted 2016) that seeks to prevent development causing significant adverse impacts upon residential amenity. Therefore, taking all matters raised into account, the appeal succeeds subject to the usual plans and timing conditions.
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 2574No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 5 September 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
- 3343837
- Application reference
- P23/V2719/HH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Vale of White Horse District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000180
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
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 5 May 2024
- Valid date
- 14 May 2024
- Start date
- 5 July 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 12 February 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 5 September 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
- 56650
- 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