Appeal 3351601
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
a single storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
One of the Council’s reasons for refusal related to flood risk. The appellant has submitted information to indicate that this is a matter that could have been resolved by way of a planning condition and there is no substantive information before me to the contrary.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a two storey terraced dwelling located in a residential area characterised by the presence of two storey terraced and semi-detached dwellings of similar appearance.
Houses in the area are set back from the road behind short parking areas and have long gardens to the rear. During my site visit, I observed the surrounding area to have a sense of uniformity, derived from the similar design of dwellings, the common use of brick, render and tiles, the prevalence of hipped roofs of the same height and the regular setting-back of dwellings.
I also noted during my site visit that many dwellings have been altered and/or extended and that such changes generally appear in keeping with host dwellings and the surrounding area.
The appeal dwelling has an existing single storey extension to the rear. The proposal would project considerably further to the rear than this existing extension. Like the existing extension, it would extend across the majority of the width of the dwelling.
The proposal would result in a tall blank wall projecting along the shared boundary between the appeal dwelling and its attached neighbour, Number [address], for some considerable distance. I find that the height of the proposal would combine with its projection and most notably, its immediate proximity to this neighbouring property, such that it would appear to loom above the shared rear boundary to an overbearing degree.
I find that the harm arising from this would be exacerbated by the presence of an existing rear extension to Number [address], which extends considerably to the rear along that dwelling’s shared boundary with No 50. The proposed development would combine with No 52’s existing extension to result in a “corridor” effect, such that the outlook from the rear of No 50 would be unduly dominated by the presence of tall and lengthy projections in immediate proximity to either side of its garden. 10.This would result in a harmful sense of enclosure, detracting significantly from the rear outlook from No 50. 11.Taking the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; Core Strategy1 Policy CS1; to DMP2 Policy DM1; and to the Council’s Residential Design Guide3, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.
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 601No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 20 November 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 12 November 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3351601
- Application reference
- PL/0888/24
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Harrow
- Planning authority code
- E09000015
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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 10 September 2024
- Valid date
- 10 September 2024
- Start date
- 7 October 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 15 August 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 20 November 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
- No
- 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
- 60360
- 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