Appeal 3349827
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
the erection of a single storey rear extension with a depth of 6.00 metres, highest point of 3.52 metres and height at the eaves of 3.00 metres.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the proposed development constitutes permitted development.
Section 04
Reasons
The proposed development is a small single storey rear extension. However, the Council’s officer report and decision notice refer to a side and rear wrap-around extension with a width greater than half the width of the original dwelling house. The Council has subsequently clarified that this reason for refusal is erroneous.
Nevertheless, I have been provided with the decision notice for the original planning application which enabled the construction of No. 281B Mortlake Road1. Various conditions were imposed as part of the permission, including one which removed permitted development rights from the property. As such, any proposals to extend the dwelling must be put forward through a planning application. There is no evidence before me to suggest that this condition has been removed and it can therefore be considered to be extant.
Given the circumstances around this appeal, and in the interests of fairness, I have provided the appellant with an opportunity to comment on this matter. No response has been forthcoming.
As a result it is clear that, irrespective of the nature of the proposed extension, it cannot be considered to be permitted development. 1 Council ref: 3020/02, approved in April 2003.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, and taking into account all other matters raised, 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 4753No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 7 May 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 3 April 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3349827
- Application reference
- 1660/24
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Redbridge
- Planning authority code
- E09000026
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
- 3. Refused prior approval of permitted development rights
- 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
- 2 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
- 9 August 2024
- Valid date
- 9 August 2024
- Start date
- 1 October 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 July 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 7 May 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
- 69063
- 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