Appeal 3362403
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
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed
Section 03
Procedural Matters
The fact that the appeal is retrospective has no effect on the consideration of the planning issues arising.
[name] visited the appeal site, I also viewed the rear of No [site address] from the adjacent properties, No [address] and No [address].
Section 04
Main Issue
The sole main issue is the effect of the appeal development, as built, on neighbouring residential amenity.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal arises because works completed to attic level differ from those approved under permission Ref 19/2598M for single and two-storey extensions and remodelling of the dwelling at No [site address] .
The key difference related to the main issue in this appeal is that, compared with the approved scheme, which includes a first-floor rear balcony, as built there is an additional unauthorised balcony at second floor level.
Both balconies are partly screened by side walls and frosted glass balustrades to limit overlooking towards the rears of the immediately neighbouring dwellings.
However, from inspection, such attempts to avoid undue overlooking are wholly unsuccessful at both neighbouring properties. There is a blatant direct view into the rear garden of No [address] from the upper second-floor balcony. [name] [address], the view from the upper balcony at the appeal property is partly screened by boundary trees, albeit trees are an impermanent visual barrier. But, more significantly, there is a direct and close line of sight from the disputed second-floor balcony, where it is apparently possible for persons on the balcony look back into the first-floor rear bedroom window of No [address].
Clearly, the development at No [site address] , as approved, itself creates a degree of overlooking from the first-floor balcony, which is to be expected in a relatively dense residential area. However, the potential for overlooking from the higher level, second-floor balcony results in a loss of privacy at both neighbouring properties to a degree which I regard as quite unacceptable in planning terms.
That is not to say that residents of, or visitors to No [site address] would necessarily use the upper balcony deliberately to spy on their neighbours. But a perceived loss of privacy is a material consideration and, in this case, actual infringement of the privacy to which neighbours are entitled would clearly occur, even unintentionally.
For this reason, the appeal development is contrary to the provisions of Policies SE1 and HOU11-13 of the adopted [site address] Local Plan Strategy which, consistent with national policy, seek to protect residential amenity.
I see no objection to the inherent architectural design of the appeal development but, in the absence of any other material consideration to indicate otherwise, I conclude that this appeal must be dismissed on the single ground of harm to 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 1576No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 16 July 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 July 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3362403
- Application reference
- 24/4126/HOUS
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Cheshire East
- Planning authority code
- E06000049
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
- 12 m²
- 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
- 14 March 2025
- Valid date
- 20 March 2025
- Start date
- 15 April 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 December 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 16 July 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
- 73063
- 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