Appeal 3352322
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
construction of a double storey first floor setback rear extension. Rear extension shall only extend by 3m beyond the original wall and the flat roof height shall be 2.5m with an eaves of 2.4m. Both neighbours line of sight of 45 deg has been considered to avoid impact of views. No work shall be done on the loft level or front elevation or ground floor. These will remain unchanged.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The host property is semi-detached, and two storeys, its design reflects the other properties on [address]; with design features including hipped roofs and attractive bay windows on the front and rear elevations. The property, like the majority of others on the street has a single storey extension on the rear elevation but retains the original bay window design at first floor level.
The proposal is for the erection of a flat roofed first floor extension on the rear elevation. The external corners of the extension would be angled slightly, and the external walls would be finished in render to match the existing dwelling.
Due to its scale and design the proposed extension would not reflect the fine detailing and proportions of the host property. This includes the rear bay window which is significantly smaller and narrower. As such the scale, massing and design of the proposed extension is visually dominant in relation to both the host property and other properties in the immediate area. The angled corners of the extension do not address my concerns in this regard.
It is asserted within the Appeal Statement that the proposed design ‘aligns with the existing roofline, fenestration and materials.’ Based on the proposed plans, it appears that the extension would project below eves height of [site address] . The position of the proposed windows would not reflect the position of the existing first floor windows and would also not align within the windows at ground floor level. As such, it is unclear how the proposed development aligns with the existing roofline and fenestration.
For the reasons detailed above the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. Therefore, the development would be contrary to Policy 53 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan Part 1 Shaping the Borough 2020-2035 which requires that development proposals respond appropriately to their context in terms of scale, height and massing.
Section 05
Other Matters
The Council raised no concerns regarding the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties. The position and scale of the extension is such that I have no reason to disagree with the Council on this matter.
My attention has been drawn to three examples of first floor extensions that have been approved by the Council. However, full details of these approvals have not been provided and as such I cannot be certain that the circumstances in each of these instances were the same as the appeal before me.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above the appeal should be 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 33807No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 June 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 April 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3352322
- Application reference
- 241672
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E09000031
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
- 1
- 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
- 20 September 2024
- Valid date
- 20 September 2024
- Start date
- 19 February 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 September 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 18 June 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
- 71423
- 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