Appeal 3348119
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 replacement of existing raised decking.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the replacement of raised decking at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 24/00775/RET, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted relates to the following approved plans: Site Location Plan; Block Plan; [name]; [name] and [name].
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the privacy of the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling, [address].
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a semi-detached bungalow, which is situated within a residential area. The Council also states that the property is within the Markyate Conservation Area, although the plan that accompanies the appeal documents appears to show that it is just outside of the boundary. Notwithstanding, I note that the Council has no objection to the proposal from a heritage point of view. Therefore, there is no need to consider this matter any further.
The proposal (which has been constructed) is for replacement timber decking at the rear of the appeal dwelling. The appellant states that the decking is a replacement for an earlier structure (for which the Council has no record). Although the current proposal is 2.4m longer, the height of the decking is the same. I also noted at my site visit that there is timber screening along the side of much of the decking, which provides some screening between the appeal site and the neighbouring dwellings.
One of the neighbouring dwellings, [address] is located, at a lower level, on the boundary with the appeal site and on the same side as the decking. [address] contains a small bedroom window on the elevation facing the appellant’s decking, albeit at a slight angle. The Council considers that the proposal has resulted in an unacceptable loss of privacy to the occupants of [address]. It refers to a separation gap of approximately 6m. The Council states that the proposal conflicts with Policy CS12 of the [name] 2006-2031 (CS). This policy seeks to ensure (amongst other things) that development should avoid loss of privacy to surrounding properties.
At my site visit, I observed that the window in [address] is relatively small with some obscure, patterned glazing. Notwithstanding the relatively short separation distance, the combination of only a small area of clear glass and the angle of view, leads me to conclude that the proposal has not resulted in an unacceptable loss of privacy to the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling. Therefore, the proposal does not conflict with Policy CS12 of the CS.
Section 05
Conditions
As the decking has already been constructed, the only condition necessary is one that lists the approved plans.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal be allowed
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 203No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 March 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 24 February 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3348119
- Application reference
- 24/00775/RET
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Dacorum Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000096
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
- 27,500 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- 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
- 15 July 2024
- Valid date
- 29 July 2024
- Start date
- 3 September 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 2 July 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 19 March 2025
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
- 66488
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21