Appeal 3363232
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
7 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
” On a raised bank at the end of garden, request to build a wooden terrace surrounded by plants and shrubs to protect the neighbour's privacy. Terrace will be accessed by wooden steps from existing lawn, both steps and terrace are protected by railings to ensure safety. Terrace only to be used on an ad hoc basis. terrace will provide access to maintain the hawthorn bush which provides privacy to the house at the back of our property. Neighbours at number 2 & 4 were consulted prior to the work starting and have no issues with privacy and will be providing a written statement to that effect.”
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
The wooden terrace has been constructed. I have determined the appeal on this basis.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to privacy.
Section 05
Reasons
[site address] is a detached two-storey dwelling within a row of similar dwellings. To the rear of the garden is a raised bank which is replicated in the gardens of the adjoining dwellings.
I acknowledge that the terrace allows access to maintain the hedge and planting to the rear boundary and that the height of the terrace is lower than the original banking, however the presence of occupiers on the terrace allows opportunities for overlooking the gardens and into the rear rooms of the adjacent dwellings. Whilst the appellant states that the use of the terrace is limited, the presence of garden furniture on the terrace indicates that the area could be used for prolonged periods resulting in a loss of privacy for the neighbouring occupants.
Although there may be an existing element of mutual overlooking from within the dwellings due to the position of the windows on the dwellings, this is not a reason to further reduce the privacy of the neighbouring occupiers.
The proposal harms the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to privacy. It conflicts with Policy SE1 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (2017 and Policy HOU12 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (2022) which, together and amongst other matters, seek to ensure that development does not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of adjoining occupiers due to loss of privacy.
Section 06
Other Matters
I note the letters of support from the neighbouring occupiers. However, they do not outweigh the significant harm I have identified above.
As part of the appeal submission the appellant has indicated that they are prepared to raise the fencing should it be required. In addition, I saw that trellis had been added to the existing fencing. However, the appeal process should not be used as a means to evolve a scheme and as it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same as was considered by the local planning authority and by interested parties at the application stage.
Section 07
Conclusion
The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. 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 20592No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 26 August 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 July 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3363232
- Application reference
- 24/4195/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
- 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
- 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
- 30 March 2025
- Valid date
- 4 April 2025
- Start date
- 4 April 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 13 January 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 26 August 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
- 75261
- 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