Appeal 3352521
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
3 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
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Reasons
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers of [address].
The appeal property is a semi-detached house, which has been extended to the rear with a single storey extension that sits on the boundary with the attached neighbour of No. 173. The proposal would see a further extension, to a total depth of 6m from the original house. The height of the extension would be 3.3m.
The adjoining house of No. 173 has not been extended. I viewed the appeal site from that property's garden and from within the house. It was clear to me that due to the depth and height of the proposed extension, sitting directly on the boundary, there would be a very dominant effect on the outlook from No.
There would be a significant overbearing impact to that property's garden and from within the house too. These matters would give rise to significant visual intrusion.
From my observations at the site visit, I also consider the height, depth and proximity to the rear window is also likely to affect levels of light to the rear room of No. 173.
The scale of the extension would therefore materially harm the living conditions of occupants. This would conflict with the relevant policies of the Havering Local Plan 2021, namely Policies 7 and 26 which, amongst other matters, resist development that causes unacceptable harm to residential amenity. The proposal is also contrary to similar objectives as set out in the Residential www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2011. The appeal is therefore 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 97No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 December 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 19 November 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3352521
- Application reference
- P0830.24
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Havering
- Planning authority code
- E09000016
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
- 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
- 24 September 2024
- Valid date
- 24 September 2024
- Start date
- 8 October 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 8 August 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 19 December 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
- 62008
- 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